MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146945386 · doi:10.1109/icdar.2003.1227717

Automatic filter selection using image quality assessment

2004· article· en· W2146945386 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalÉcole de Technologie SupérieureConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Quality (philosophy)Image qualityArtificial intelligenceFilter (signal processing)Computer visionQuality assessmentImage (mathematics)Reliability engineeringEngineeringEvaluation methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method for automatically selecting the best filter to treat poor quality printed documents using image quality assessment. We introduce five quality measures to obtain information about the quality of the images, and morphological filters to improve their quality. A training set of 370 images was used to develop the system. Experimental results on the test set show a significant improvement in the recognition rate from 73.24% using no filter at all to 93.09% after applying a filter that was automatically selected.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations34
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207