MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137858948 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4702

INTRODUCTION TO THE FOURIER TRASNFORM: IMAGE PROCESSING LABORATORY EXAMPLE

2012· article· en· W2137858948 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gabriel Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSignal processingImage processingMultidimensional signal processingMATLABSession (web analytics)SIGNAL (programming language)Code (set theory)Simple (philosophy)Fourier transformSoftwareDomain (mathematical analysis)Digital image processingSubject (documents)Image (mathematics)Data processingAlgorithmComputer engineeringArtificial intelligenceDigital signal processingProgramming languageComputer hardwareDatabaseMathematicsSet (abstract data type)World Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Signal processing can be a mathematical intense subject and undergraduate students may not be able to appreciate the enormous importance on the applied side of things. Even if the instructor mentions some of the fascinating application areas, it might be difficult for students to attend a laboratory session in which they will have enough time to code a signal processing algorithm and see a big difference when processing data in the frequency domain. In this paper I describe a simple example in which students have an opportunity to develop a theoretical solution to enhance an image and with just a few lines of code run a program that will show a dramatic difference between an original image and the enhanced version. Different fundamental signal processing concepts are reinforced with the laboratory example and its application only requires a computer and signal processing developing software such as Matlab.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207