MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156040653 · doi:10.82308/37532

Object detection and analysis using coherency filtering

2006· dissertation· en· W2156040653 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Donovan H. Parks

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceObject (grammar)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceObject detectionPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis introduces a novel local appearance method, termed coherency filtering, which allows for the robust detection and analysis of rigid objects contained in heterogeneous scenes by properly exploiting the wealth of information returned by a k-nearest neighbours (k-NN) classifier. A significant advantage of k-NN classifiers is their ability to indicate uncertainty in the classification of a local window by returning a list of k candidate classifications. Classification of a local window can be inherently uncertain when considered in isolation since local windows from different objects or the background may be similar in appearance. In order to robustly identify objects in a query image, a process is needed to appropriately resolve this uncertainty. Coherency filtering resolves this uncertainty by imposing constraints across the colour channels of a query image along with spatial constraints between neighbouring local windows in a manner that produces reliable classification of local windows and ultimately results in the robust identification of objects. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that the proposed system can robustly identify objects contained in test images focusing on pose, scale, illumination, occlusion, and image noise. A qualitative comparison with four state-of-the-art systems indicates comparable or superior performance on test sets of similar difficulty can be achieved by the proposed system, while being capable of robustly identifying objects under a greater range of viewing conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207