MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170567421 · doi:10.1109/crv.2007.20

Constructing Face Image Logs that are Both Complete and Concise

2007· article· en· W2170567421 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
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)Computer scienceConstruct (python library)Artificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Computer visionProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)Face detectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Image qualitySequence (biology)Object-class detectionFacial recognition systemPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a construct that we call a face image log. Face image logs are collections of time stamped images representing faces detected in surveillance videos. The techniques demonstrated in this paper strive to construct face image logs that are complete and concise in the sense that the logs contain only the best images available for each individual observed. We begin by describing how to assess and compare the quality of face images. We then illustrate a robust method for selecting high quality images. This selection process takes into consideration the limitations inherent in existing face detection and person tracking techniques. Experimental results demonstrate that face logs constructed in this manner generally contain fewer than 5% of all detected faces, yet these faces are of high quality, and they represent all individuals detected in the video sequence.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207