STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SLANT ANGLES IN HANDWRITTEN NUMERAL STRINGS AND EFFECTS OF SLANT CORRECTION ON SEGMENTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel and efficient method for correction of slant angles in handwritten numeral strings is proposed. For the first time, the statistical distribution of slant angles in handwritten numerals is investigated and the effects of slant correction on the segmentation of handwritten numeral strings are shown. In our proposed slant correction method, utilizing geometric features, a Component Slant Angle (CSA) is estimated for each connected component independently. A weighted average is then used to compute the String Slant Angle (SSA), which is applied uniformly to correct the slant of all the components in numeral strings. Our experimental results have revealed novel statistics for slant angles of handwritten numeral strings, and also showed that slant correction can significantly improve extraction of segmentation features and segmentation accuracy of touching numerals. Comparison between our slant correction algorithm and similar algorithms in the literature show that our algorithm is more efficient, and on average it has a faster running time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".