MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096837246 · doi:10.1109/icfhr.2012.183

Arabic handwritten word spotting using language models

2012· article· en· W2096837246 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpottingComputer scienceHandwritingArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingArabicClassifier (UML)Word (group theory)Set (abstract data type)Handwriting recognitionProcess (computing)Speech recognitionIdentification (biology)Keyword spottingFeature extractionLinguisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the ever-increasing amounts of published materials being made available, developing efficient means of locating target items has become a subject of significant interest. Among the approaches adopted for this purpose is word spotting, which enables the identification of documents through the use of pertinent keywords. This paper reports on an effective method of word spotting for Arabic handwritten documents that takes into consideration the nature of Arabic handwriting. Parts of Arabic Words (PAWs) form the basic components of this search process, and a hierarchical classifier (consisting of a set of classifiers each trained on a different part of the input pattern) is implemented. For the first time in Arabic word spotting, language models are incorporated into the process of reconstructing words from PAWs. Details of the method and promising experimental results are also presented.

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.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207