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 OpenAlexaff
Kanwarpreet Kaur, Sheela Ramanna, Christopher J. Henry

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntelligent Decision TechnologiesSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207