MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152262720 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2008.37

Geometry-Based Image Retrieval in Binary Image Databases

2008· article· en· W2152262720 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage retrievalMatching (statistics)Similarity (geometry)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceBinary imageComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)DatabaseRepresentation (politics)Image (mathematics)MathematicsImage processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a geometry-based image retrieval system is developed for multi-object images. We model both shape and topology of image objects using a structured representation called curvature tree (CT). The hierarchy of the CT reflects the inclusion relationships between the image objects. To facilitate shape-based matching, triangle-area representation (TAR) of each object is stored at the corresponding node in the CT. The similarity between two multi-object images is measured based on the maximum similarity subtree isomorphism (MSSI) between their CTs. For this purpose, we adopt a recursive algorithm to solve the MSSI problem and a very effective dynamic programming algorithm to measure the similarity between the attributed nodes. Our matching scheme agrees with many recent findings in psychology about the human perception of multi-object images. Experiments on a database of 13500 real and synthesized medical images and the MPEG-7 CE-1 database of 1400 shape images have shown the effectiveness of the proposed 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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.257 · 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