MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157819996 · doi:10.1108/oclc-09-2014-0032

Image retrieval with SINCERITY

2015· article· en· W2157819996 on OpenAlexaff
Élaine Ménard, Vanessa Girouard

Bibliographic record

VenueOCLC Systems & Services · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSincerityComputer scienceSearch engineSearch engine indexingInformation retrievalContext (archaeology)OriginalitySample (material)Image (mathematics)Index (typography)World Wide WebArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a search engine dedicated to image retrieval in a bilingual (French and English) context. This paper presents the first phase of user testing that was carried out to validate and refine SINCERITY, the new search device. Design/methodology/approach – This first phase of the search engine testing involved a small group of image searchers (10 French-speaking and 10 English-speaking participants) who were asked to retrieve a sample of images (30) using the new tool. A questionnaire was also developed to compile the comments of the users. Findings – The results of this first phase of testing revealed that even though image indexing was sometimes problematic, the participants did not encounter major difficulties retrieving images with SINCERITY. Comments and suggestions received will be taken into consideration to improve the performance and aesthetics of the search engine. Originality/value – Once fully operational, SINCERITY will allow users to search images in an attractive and user-friendly manner. Eventually, other types of images (documentary and artistic) will be added to the image database linked to the image search engine, as well as other languages.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOCLC Systems & ServicesSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207