MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164881946 · doi:10.1109/isie.1996.548395

A criterion for resolution of ambiguity of raster images

2002· article· en· W2164881946 on OpenAlexaff
Waldemar Wójcik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaster graphicsAmbiguityComputer scienceInterpretation (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceGraphArchitectureNatural language processingComputer visionTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although raster images are inherently ambiguous, humans exhibit uncanny abilities to come up with their likely interpretations. A methodology to simulate such behaviour on a computer is presented here. A numerical method for rejection of unlikely interpretations is given. A likely interpretation selected is found to depend on a particular raster pattern under study, but also on the architecture of the machine performing the study, as well as on the machine language used to elaborate possible interpretations. A number of suggestions for further research emerge, pertaining to the image description languages, machine vision computer architectures, graph interpretation systems, as well as comments on the feasibility of automatic, intelligent retouching of partially damaged images.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207