MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128693633 · doi:10.1117/12.403811

<title>Image indexing in the JPEG2000 framework</title>

2000· article· en· W2128693633 on OpenAlexaff
Chuping Liu, Mrinal Mandal

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSearch engine indexingJPEG 2000Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceHistogramWaveletImage compressionData compressionWavelet transformComputer visionDatabase indexImage retrievalImage processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of images and video has increased significantly in recent years. It is crucial to develop indexing techniques for searching images and video based on their content. Recently, several indexing techniques have been proposed in both pixel and compressed domain. Due to its lower computational complexity, compressed domain indexing techniques are becoming popular. Among the compression techniques, discrete-wavelet-transform based techniques have become popular because of its excellent energy compaction and multi-resolution capability. The upcoming JPEG2000 image compression standard is also based on a wavelet coder. In this paper, a progressive bit-plane indexing scheme in the JPEG2000 framework is proposed. Here, a 2D significant0bit- map array and a 2D histogram of significant bits of wavelet coefficients are used as the image indices. Image retrieval is performed by matching the index of the query and candidate images from the database. Experimental results show that the proposed scheme provides a good indexing performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.066

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207