MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093000758 · doi:10.1142/s0218001401000873

CLASSIFICATION OF SIMILAR 2-D OBJECTS BY WAVELET-SPARSE-MATRIX (WSM) METHOD

2001· article· en· W2093000758 on OpenAlexaff
Tu Bui, Yubao Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Zernike polynomialsDiscriminative modelInvariant (physics)Matrix (chemical analysis)Computer scienceSparse matrixMoment (physics)MathematicsComputer visionAlgorithmPhysicsOpticsGaussian

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a novel method called Wavelet-Sparse-Matrix (WSM) to extract the spatial features of 2-D objects for classifying objects that have subtle differences. The differences between these objects are present in the spatial orientations of the objects, or in the local positions of points on the contours of the objects. The separable wavelets are able to distinguish these differences and to separate them into three sparse subpatterns. Sparse matrix technique has the ability to rearrange nonzero elements in a sparse matrix by moving them as close together as possible. WSM method is a combination of these two techniques which can considerably improve the distinction of slightly dissimilar objects. Experiments are conducted, which include a series of discriminative simulations and comparisons with Fourier descriptor and Zernike moment invariant. These experiments verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the WSM method.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial IntelligenceSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207