MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152078447 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2001.977103

Rapid determination of co-occurrence texture features

2002· article· en· W2152078447 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Clausi, Yongping Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration
KeywordsGrey levelComputer scienceCo-occurrence matrixArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Texture (cosmology)Co-occurrenceMatrix (chemical analysis)Computational complexity theoryTable (database)AlgorithmImage processingImage textureData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typically, the co-occurrence features for image processing are calculated-by using a grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM). This method is computationally intensive since the matrix is usually sparse leading to many unnecessary calculations involving zero probabilities. An improvement on the GLCM method is to utilize a grey level co-occurrence linked list (GLCLL) to store only the non-zero co-occurring probabilities. The GLCLL suffers since, to achieve preferred computational speeds, the list should be sorted. This paper presents a grey level co-occurrence hybrid structure (GLCHS) based on an integrated hash table and linked list approach. Texture features obtained using this technique are identical to those obtained using the GLCM and GLCLL. Based on a Brodatz test image, the GLCHS method is demonstrated to be a superior technique when compared across various window sizes and grey level quantizations. The GLCHS method required, on average, 33.4% of the computational time (/spl sigma/=3.08%) required by the GLCLL. Significant computational gains are made using the GLCHS method.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207