Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".