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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defocus blur is extremely common in images captured using optical imaging systems. It may be undesirable, but may also be an intentional artistic effect, thus it can either enhance or inhibit our visual perception of the image scene. For tasks, such as image restoration and object recognition, one might want to segment a partially blurred image into blurred and non-blurred regions. In this paper, we propose a sharpness metric based on local binary patterns and a robust segmentation algorithm to separate in- and out-of-focus image regions. The proposed sharpness metric exploits the observation that most local image patches in blurry regions have significantly fewer of certain local binary patterns compared with those in sharp regions. Using this metric together with image matting and multi-scale inference, we obtained high-quality sharpness maps. Tests on hundreds of partially blurred images were used to evaluate our blur segmentation algorithm and six comparator methods. The results show that our algorithm achieves comparative segmentation results with the state of the art and have big speed advantage over the others.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it