Comparing the Machine Ability to Recognize Hand-Written Hindu and Arabic Digits
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
AbstractThe main aim of this work is to compare Hindu and Arabic digits with respect to a machine’s ability to recognize them. This comparison is done on the raw representation (images) of the digits and on their features extracted using two feature selection methods. Three learning algorithms with different inductive biases were used in the comparison performed using the raw representation; two of them were also used to compare the digits using their extracted features. All classifiers gave better results for Hindu digits in both cases; when raw representation was used and when the selected features where used. The experiments also show that Hindu digits can be classified with better accuracy, higher confidence and using fewer features than Arabic digits. These results indicate that hand-written Hindu digits are actually easier to recognize than hand-written Arabic digits. The machine learning methods used in this work are instance based learning (the kNN algorithm), Naive Bayesian and neural networks. T...
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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