MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128237130 · doi:10.1142/s0219467803000919

VIEWS OR POINTS OF VIEW ON IMAGES

2003· article· en· W2128237130 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Oria, M. TAMER ÖZSU

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Image and Graphics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Analysis and Summarization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceObject (grammar)GRASPRepresentation (politics)Class (philosophy)Interpretation (philosophy)Image (mathematics)ExploitLogical data modelSemantics (computer science)Point (geometry)Data model (GIS)Object modelInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceData modelingDatabaseProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Images like other multimedia data need to be described as it is difficult to grasp their semantics from the raw data. With the emergence of standards like MPEG-7, multimedia data will be increasingly produced together with some semantic descriptors. But a description of a multimedia data is just an interpretation, a point of view on the data and different interpretations can exist for the same multimedia data. In this paper we explore the use of view techniques to define and manage different points of view on images. Views have been widely used in relational database management systems to extend modeling capabilities, and to provide logical data independence. Since our image model is defined on an object-oriented model, we will first propose a powerful object-oriented mechanism based on the distinction between class and type. The object view is used in the image view definition. The image view mechanism exploits the separation of the physical representation in an image of a real world object from the real object itself to allow different interpretations of an image region. Finally we will discuss the implementation of the image view mechanisms on the existing object models.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Image and GraphicsSame topicVideo Analysis and SummarizationFrench-language works237,207