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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present near set theory using the perceptual indiscernibility and tolerance relations, to demonstrate the practical application of near set theory to the image correspondence problem, and to compare this method with existing image similarity measures. Design/methodology/approach Image-correspondence methodologies are present in many systems that are depended on daily. In these systems, the discovery of sets of similar objects (aka, tolerance classes) stems from human perception of the objects being classified. This view of perception of image-correspondence springs directly from Poincaré's work on visual spaces during 1890s and Zeeman's work on tolerance spaces and visual acuity during 1960s. Thus, in solving the image-correspondence problem, it is important to have systems that accurately model human perception. Near set theory provides a framework for measuring the similarity of digital images (and perceptual objects, in general) based on features that describe them in much the same way that humans perceive objects. Findings The contribution of this paper is a perception-based classification of images using near sets. Originality/value The method presented in this paper represents a new approach to solving problems in which the goal is to match human perceptual groupings. While the results presented in the paper are based on measuring the resemblance between images, the approach can be applied to any application that can be formulated in terms of sets such that the objects in the sets can be described by feature vectors.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it