MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156341121 · doi:10.1109/icip.1995.529754

Image interpolation using a simple Gibbs random field model

2002· article· en· W2156341121 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

VenueProceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Image scalingComputer scienceNearest-neighbor interpolationImage (mathematics)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceIterative methodRandom fieldLinear interpolationComputer visionImage textureBinary imageMathematicsImage processingPattern recognition (psychology)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial interpolation is an important technique that is often used to recover an image from its downsampled version, or to simply perform image expansion. Many conventional linear techniques exist, however, these often perform rather poorly in a subjective manner. In this paper, image interpolation is performed using a binary-based Gibbs random field (GRF) model. Images are interpolated from their downsampled versions along with a number of texture parameters that are estimated within smaller image blocks. These iterative GRF methods are subsequently approximated by a non-iterative nonlinear filtering operation, thereby reducing the computational complexity of the interpolation process. Experimental results indicate that the statistical GRF approaches adapt to textured regions as well as the smooth areas within an image, and thus, can achieve better results than the conventional linear schemes.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
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 score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.274 · 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