MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145889580 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1993.332214

Comparison of image transforms in the coding of the displaced frame difference for block-based motion compensation

2002· article· en· W2145889580 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Compression Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHadamard transformResidualMotion compensationArtificial intelligenceCoding (social sciences)Computer visionComputer scienceDiscrete cosine transformLapped transformWalsh functionTransform codingBlock (permutation group theory)Frame (networking)MathematicsAlgorithmImage (mathematics)StatisticsTelecommunicationsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper compares the performance of various image transforms in the coding of residual images obtained after applying block-based motion compensation to a video sequence. The results show that the performance penalty associated with using a "sub-optimal" transform (ie: one other than the KLT) is generally larger in the case of residual images than it is when still images are coded. However, the results also showed that the KLT is not the optimal transform to use at all data rates. In addition, the DCT does not work significantly better than the simpler Haar, Walsh-Hadamard and Slant transforms when operating on the residual images.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.324
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

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesFrench-language works237,207