MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315211922 · doi:10.3233/idt-150246

Measuring the nearness of layered flow graphs: Application to Content Based Image Retrieval

2016· article· en· W2315211922 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

VenueIntelligent Decision Technologies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisjoint setsSet (abstract data type)Flow (mathematics)Computer sciencePerceptionSimplicityRough setImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceData miningTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rough set based flow graphs represent the flow of information for a given data set where branches of these could be constructed as decision rules. However, in the recent years, the concept of flow graphs has been applied to perceptual systems (also called perceptual flow graphs) where they play a vital role in determining the nearness among disjoint sets of perceptual objects. Perceptual flow graphs were first introduced to represent and reason about sufficiently near visual points in images. In this paper, we have given a practical implementation of flow graphs induced by a perceptual system, defined with respect to digital images, to perform Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR). Results are generated using the SIMPLicity dataset, and our results are compared with the near-set based tolerance nearness measure (tNM).

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)0.001
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 score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.209 · 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