MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090978288 · doi:10.1142/s021946780600232x

MTAR: A ROBUST 2D SHAPE REPRESENTATION

2006· article· en· W2090978288 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim El Rube, Naif Alajlan, Mohamed S. Kamel, Maher Ahmed, G.H. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Image and Graphics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaxima and minimaAffine transformationSmoothingRepresentation (politics)Wavelet transformCurvatureMathematicsScale (ratio)Boundary (topology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)WaveletComputer visionGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a new 2D shape Multiscale Triangle-Area Representation (MTAR) method is proposed. This representation utilizes a simple geometric principle, that is, the area of the triangles formed by the shape boundary points. The wavelet transform is used for smoothing and decomposing the shape boundaries into multiscale levels. At each scale level, a TAR image and the corresponding Maxima-Minima lines are obtained. The resulting MTAR is more robust to noise, less complex, and more selective than similar methods such as the curvature scale-space (CSS). Furthermore, the MTAR is invariant to the general affine transformations. The proposed MTAR is tested and compared to the CSS method using MPEG-7 CE-shape-1 part B and Columbia Object Image Library (COIL-20) datasets. The results show that the proposed MTAR outperforms the CSS method for the conducted tests.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Image and GraphicsSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207