MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160334819 · doi:10.1109/icdsp.2009.5201062

Image segmentation using Scale-Space Random Walks

2009· article· en· W2160334819 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
KeywordsRandom walkComputer scienceExtension (predicate logic)Image segmentationNoise (video)SegmentationImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceSpace (punctuation)Scale (ratio)Scale-space segmentationRandom walker algorithmAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many methods for supervised image segmentation exist. One such algorithm, random walks, is very fast and accurate when compared to other methods. A drawback to random walks is that it has difficulty producing accurate and clean segmentations in the presence of noise. Therefore, we propose an extension to random walks that improves its performance without significantly modifying the original algorithm. Our extension, known as ldquoscale-space random walksrdquo, or SSRW, addresses these problems. The SSRW is able to produce more accurate segmentations in the presence of noise while still retaining all of the properties of the original algorithm.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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