Comparing Cooccurrence Probabilities and Markov Random Fields for Texture Analysis of SAR Sea Ice Imagery
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares the discrimination ability of two texture analysis methods: Markov random fields (MRFs) and gray-level cooccurrence probabilities (GLCPs). There exists limited published research comparing different texture methods, especially with regard to segmenting remotely sensed imagery. The role of window size in texture feature consistency and separability as well as the role in handling of multiple textures within a window are investigated. Necessary testing is performed on samples of synthetic (MRF generated), Brodatz, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sea ice imagery. GLCPs are demonstrated to have improved discrimination ability relative to MRFs with decreasing window size, which is important when performing image segmentation. On the other hand, GLCPs are more sensitive to texture boundary confusion than MRFs given their respective segmentation procedures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it