MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095653244 · doi:10.1145/1877911.1877917

Collaborative content synchronization through an event-based framework

2010· article· en· W2095653244 on OpenAlexaff
Madirakshi Das, Alexander C. Loui, Suprakash Datta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUploadEvent (particle physics)PopularitySimilarity (geometry)Greedy algorithmInformation retrievalFocus (optics)Synchronization (alternating current)Image (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceData miningWorld Wide WebAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Web-based user-driven multimedia applications such as Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, and MySpace have gained enormous popularity in recent years and have enabled the sharing of billions of multimedia objects. Multimedia files, especially images and videos, have a natural chronological ordering based on capture date and time. However, in most cases capture information is no longer available once images have been uploaded, emailed, or edited. In this paper, we focus on the problem of adding groups of images with missing temporal information (but ordered temporally) into a primary, organized image collection. We formulate the problem of adding images to an existing collection as a discrete optimization problem in which the objective function incorporates intuitive notions of temporal ordering and similarity with the existing images. We use the event and sub-event structure of the collection to identify potential matches. Specifically, we maximize the sum of similarity scores of the added images while maintaining their temporal order in an event-based framework. We also propose a greedy algorithm for adding images with the objective of minimizing the temporal spread of the images in the merged collection. We evaluate our algorithms using consumer image collections.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207