MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119023565 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2006.734

Joint Image Segmentation and Interpretation Using Iterative Semantic Region Growing on SAR Sea Ice Imagery

2006· article· en· W2119023565 on OpenAlexafffund
Qiyao Yu, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceMarkov random fieldArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationSynthetic aperture radarScale-space segmentationInterpretation (philosophy)Radar imagingComputer visionSegmentation-based object categorizationPattern recognition (psychology)Semantic interpretationRadar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmentation of images into disjoint regions and interpretation of the regions for semantic meanings are two central tasks in an image analysis system. Typically, the segmentation and interpretation are performed separately with the interpretation as a post processing of segmentation. In this paper, we use an iterative method that keeps refining the segmentation and producing semantic class labels at the same time. The segmentation algorithm is based on a region growing technique and the interpretation is a Markov Random Field (MRF) based classification. The two processes are integrated under the Bayesian framework, with both aiming at reducing a defined energy. The interactions between the two are bidirectional by letting the interpretation result have some degree of control on the region growing process. Various features can hence be efficiently combined, and accurate classifications are obtained for operational synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sea ice applications.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

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 communication0.0000.003
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207