MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131026578 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1349767

A hybrid algorithm using discrete cosine transform and Gabor filter bank for texture segmentation

2004· article· en· W2131026578 on OpenAlexaff
Nezamoddin N. Kachouie, Javad Alirezaie, Paul Fieguth

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilter bankDiscrete cosine transformGabor filterArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionComputer scienceGabor transformFilter (signal processing)Computer visionFeature vectorSegmentationFeature (linguistics)Image textureMathematicsAlgorithmImage segmentationTime–frequency analysisImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gabor filters have been widely used for texture segmentation and feature extraction, however there are important considerations regarding filter parameters, filter bank coverage in the frequency domain and feature dimensional reduction. In this paper, a texture segmentation algorithm based on a hybrid filter bank is presented. The proposed method uses a Gabor filter bank and discrete cosine transform (GDCT) to extract the optimal features for texture segmentation. To reduce the feature vector dimension a competitive network is trained to estimate the principal components of the extracted features. The feature vectors composing both Gabor and DCT features are quantized by estimated eigenvectors. The proposed method enables the use of multiple filter banks or larger filter banks consisting of a higher number of channels.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207