MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102903558 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2001.977981

Using the Canny edge detector for feature extraction and enhancement of remote sensing images

2002· article· en· W2102903558 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
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanny edge detectorArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer sciencePreprocessorFeature extractionEdge detectionFeature (linguistics)Image segmentationNoise (video)Pattern recognition (psychology)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionDetectorSegmentationImage gradientImage (mathematics)Image processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Edges are important features in an image since they represent significant local intensity changes. They provide important clues to separate regions within an object or to identify changes in illumination. Most remote sensing applications, such as image registration, image segmentation, region separation, object description, and recognition, use edge detection as a preprocessing stage for feature extraction. Real images, such as remote sensing images, can be corrupted with point noise. The real problem is how to enhance noisy remote sensing images and simultaneously extract the edges. Using the implemented Canny edge detector for feature extraction and as an enhancement tool for remote sensing images, the result was robust with a very high enhancement level.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations118
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207