MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102573339 · doi:10.1364/josaa.21.000913

First- and second-order information in natural images: a filter-based approach to image statistics

2004· article· en· W2102573339 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron Johnson, Curtis L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRoyal Society
KeywordsFilter (signal processing)Image (mathematics)Computer scienceHigher-order statisticsContrast (vision)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Similarity (geometry)LuminanceFourier transformFractalTexture (cosmology)Natural (archaeology)Computer visionStatisticsMathematicsSignal processingMathematical analysisGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous analyses of natural image statistics have dealt mainly with their Fourier power spectra. Here we explore image statistics by examining responses to biologically motivated filters that are spatially localized and respond to first-order (luminance-defined) and second-order (contrast- or texture-defined) characteristics. We compare the distribution of natural image responses across filter parameters for first- and second-order information. We find that second-order information in natural scenes shows the same self-similarity previously described for first-order information but has substantially less orientational anisotropy. The magnitudes of the two kinds of information, as well as their mutual unsigned correlation, are much stronger for particular combinations of filter parameters in natural images but not in unstructured fractal images having the same power spectra.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.281
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations66
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207