MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126349270

Processing of low quality document images: Issues and directions

2008· article· en· W2126349270 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Signal Processing Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media Forensic Detection
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePreprocessorQuality (philosophy)Document image processingScale (ratio)Historical documentInformation retrievalImage qualityDegradation (telecommunications)Data miningArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Image segmentationGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Issues facing document image analysis and recognition are discussed based on the quality and complexity of images. Special attention is paid to low-quality images of ancient manuscripts. Because of the complex content of this type of document, which usually contains several layers of information in the same scale levels, the definition of degradation must be reconsidered. This opens up new challenges for the modeling of document degradation. Also, discussed is the development of appropriate restoration methods for handling degradation. The advantages of preprocessing a document to remove some of the unwanted layers of information in the document image in order to improve its quality are considered, using currently available or new paradigms.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.244 · 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