MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137633777 · doi:10.1109/icdsp.2002.1027843

Fuzzy aggregation of palette colors for hybrid querying of fine art image databases

2003· article· en· W2137633777 on OpenAlexaff
P. Androutsos, Azadeh Kushki, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis, A.N. Venetsanopoulos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalette (painting)Computer scienceDatabaseInformation retrievalContext (archaeology)PaintingSet (abstract data type)Fuzzy logicFuzzy setFlexibility (engineering)Scheme (mathematics)Image retrievalImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As outlined by the ISO committee, the problem of hybrid query generation lies outside the scope of the MPEG-7 standard. This problem of creating intelligent image database queries that both correctly reflect the intentions of the user as well as provide good retrieval results can be approached in various ways. This paper proposes a hybrid query generation scheme which employs fuzzy aggregation for including and excluding palette colors within the context of a fine art database containing various paintings and drawings. The aggregator herein exhibits flexibility in its logical behaviour through parameters that can be set by the designer as well permitting the exclusion of specific colors from queries. This translates to richer controls for a user wishing to locate works from a large art image database that have similar, yet complex color palettes. Experimentation on an image database of 464 paintings and drawings illustrate this fact, and a comparison with a weighted mean approach is provided.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207