MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150420725 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2002.1048303

Recognition of similar objects using 2-D wavelet-fractal feature extraction

2003· article· en· W2150420725 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
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionTransformation (genetics)WaveletComputer scienceFractalFeature (linguistics)Translation (biology)Wavelet transformComputer visionImage (mathematics)Local binary patternsRotation (mathematics)MathematicsHistogram

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new two dimensional (2-D) object recognition method is proposed to differentiate similar objects, detect defective objects, and recognize printed characters. First, a 2-D image is transformed to a weighted shape matrix to secure invariance in translation, scaling, rotation, and split into four dyadic subimages. Wavelet transformation is applied to each subimage in order to further explore its details in different directions and to achieve image subband decomposition. Finally, an efficient and effective 2-D image fractal algorithm is used to extract each subband coefficient as a feature for classification. A series of experiments were conducted on binary objects and character images for recognition and classification. The experimental results showed that the proposed method is especially effective in classifying similar objects and the recognition rate could be very high in the recognition of printed characters.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.247 · 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