MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107154908 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1345278

A framework for repurposing multimedia content

2004· article· en· W2107154908 on OpenAlexaff
M. Shamim Hossain, Md. Abdur Rahman, A. El Saddik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultimedia Communication and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRepurposingTranscodingMultimediaMetadataWorld Wide WebService (business)The InternetMobile deviceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, there are a lot of different device profiles (desktop PC, Web TV, handheld PDA, Internet screen telephones, cellular telephones, DTV and network computers, etc) for accessing online multimedia content. Developing appropriate multimedia content for each of the abovementioned devices that may also function in different networks is very expensive and somehow unmanageable. Content repurposing deals with this problem by taking multimedia content designed for a particular device or platform and automatically repurposing it to fit other platforms or devices. The basic idea is to maintain a single copy of the content in its original form and to separate the actual content from its presentation format. The approach proposed in this paper uses Web services technology to repurpose multimedia content to fit any desired device automatically. In our framework the multimedia content is stored in distributed databases and is described using metadata standards. Once the system receives a specific request, it compiles the response according to the user profile and end device. If a specific repurposing service is not available in the local system infrastructure (e.g., to transcode a tiff image into a png image), a Web services request is made to a specific UDDI server requesting an appropriate repurposing service. If a service is found we make use of its capabilities, otherwise we try to find a bridge to solve the request (e.g., transcoding tiff into jpg and then jpg into png). In this paper we describe the architecture of the system and its main functionality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultimedia Communication and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207