MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158240667 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1557131

Texture classification using wavelet transform and support vector machines

2006· article· en· W2158240667 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceWavelet transformWaveletSupport vector machineDiscrete wavelet transformComputer scienceTexture (cosmology)Image textureStationary wavelet transformSecond-generation wavelet transformComputer visionImage processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we have investigated an approach based on support vector machines (SVMs) and wavelet transform (WT) for texture analysis. Texture analysis plays an important role in many tasks, ranging from remote sensing to medical imaging and query by content in large image databases. The main difficulty of texture analysis in the past was the lack of adequate tools to characterize different scales of texture effectively. The development in multi-resolution analysis such as wavelet transform has helped overcome this difficulty. It was found that the results using the combination of wavelet statistical and wavelet co-occurrence features generated from discrete wavelet transform for texture classification are promising. In recent years, support vector machines (SVM) have demonstrated excellent performance in a variety of pattern recognition problems. By applying SVM in tandem with the discrete wavelet transform for texture classification, it has produced more accurate classification results based on the Brodatz texture database

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.241 · 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