MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099334203 · doi:10.1109/icdar.2001.953914

A feedback-based approach for segmenting handwritten legal amounts on bank cheques

2002· article· en· W2099334203 on OpenAlexafffund
Jun Zhou, Ching Y. Suen, Ke Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMarket segmentationClassifier (UML)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkProcess (computing)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proposed feedback-based approach is implemented in two steps. In the first step, segmentation is done according to the structural features between the connected components in the legal amounts. In the second step, a feedback process is introduced to re-segment the parts that could not be identified in the first step. Then a multiple neural network classifier is used to verify the re-segmentation result. The confidence value produced by the classifier is used to determine the best segmentation points. This approach is tested on a CENPARMI database and the result indicates that the correct segmentation rate increased by 13.4% from the previous approach.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207