Tiny Videos: A Large Data Set for Nonparametric Video Retrieval and Frame Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a large database of over 50,000 user-labeled videos collected from YouTube. We develop a compact representation called "tiny videos" that achieves high video compression rates while retaining the overall visual appearance of the video as it varies over time. We show that frame sampling using affinity propagation-an exemplar-based clustering algorithm-achieves the best trade-off between compression and video recall. We use this large collection of user-labeled videos in conjunction with simple data mining techniques to perform related video retrieval, as well as classification of images and video frames. The classification results achieved by tiny videos are compared with the tiny images framework [24] for a variety of recognition tasks. The tiny images data set consists of 80 million images collected from the Internet. These are the largest labeled research data sets of videos and images available to date. We show that tiny videos are better suited for classifying scenery and sports activities, while tiny images perform better at recognizing objects. Furthermore, we demonstrate that combining the tiny images and tiny videos data sets improves classification precision in a wider range of categories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".