MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124130976 · doi:10.1109/icassp.1988.196747

Morphological skeleton representation and shape recognition

2003· article· en· W2124130976 on OpenAlexaff
Ziheng Zhou, A.N. Venetsanopoulos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopological skeletonPattern recognition (psychology)Representation (politics)Skeleton (computer programming)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceShape analysis (program analysis)Matching (statistics)Medial axisFeature extractionSimilarity (geometry)Feature (linguistics)Distance transformSet (abstract data type)Computer visionMathematicsImage (mathematics)Active shape modelSegmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nature of the morphological skeleton representation of a binary shape is related to the composition of structuring elements through the distance function defined by morphological set transforms in digital space. Two digital metrics, uniform-step distance and periodically-uniform-step distance, are introduced to provide useful spatial measures for morphological transforms. A natural shape representation by ribbonlike components is accomplished by extraction of skeletal feature primitives from the morphological skeleton of a shape. The hierarchical structure of the representation makes it stable and insensitive to noise disturbance. The matching is a simple top-down process in which the inverses of the skeletal feature primitives at each level are compared. The recognition is based on the similarity measure provided by the matching process.>

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations31
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207