MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100145971 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1349692

Shape constrained discrete dynamic contours for noisy object segmentation

2004· article· en· W2100145971 on OpenAlexaff
Azad Shademan, Farrokh Janabi‐Sharifi, Javad Alirezaie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive shape modelPoint distribution modelArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceSegmentationHeat kernel signatureShape analysis (program analysis)Active contour modelPattern recognition (psychology)Normalization (sociology)Focus (optics)Boundary (topology)Image segmentationInvariant (physics)MathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we focus on using shape information of a known class of objects to match an active contour model (ACM) with the boundary of an object in a noisy scene. The problem is addressed as finding two similar shapes in the presence of noise, where the edges of the desired object are not clearly distinguishable, during the iterative process of finding the energy-minimized active contour. The shape information is obtained through the transformation, scale, and rotation invariant Fourier descriptors (FD). During a training phase, the principal component analysis (PCA) of the FD is performed to find the modes of the variation of the FD. This is different from active shape models (ASM) that deal with shape through a point distribution model (PDM) in the spatial domain. Our proposed method overcomes the difficulties associated with landmark localization and shape normalization in ASM. We replace the shape constraint with the internal energy of ACM. The contour is constrained to an allowable space in FD domain (shape information) and cannot freely deform according to the external energy. Experimental results show a faster convergence in comparison to the original ACM and less user interaction in the training phase compared to ASM. Also, the resulting contours are more similar to the mean of the expert's manual segmentation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207