MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747059896 · doi:10.4018/ijcini.2017070101

Biometric Pattern Recognition from Social Media Aesthetics

2017· article· en· W2747059896 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

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBiometricsHyperplaneSocial mediaArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Feature vectorVisualizationSupport vector machineGraphk-nearest neighbors algorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Feature selectionDecision treeMachine learningInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online social media (OSN) has witnessed a significant growth over past decade. Millions of people now share their thoughts, emotions, preferences, opinions and aesthetic information in the form of images, videos, music, texts, blogs and emoticons. Recently, due to existence of person specific traits in media data, researchers started to investigate such traits with the goal of biometric pattern analysis and recognition. Until now, gender recognition from image aesthetics has not been explored in the biometric community. In this paper, the authors present an authentic model for gender recognition, based on the discriminating visual features found in user favorite images. They validate the model on a publicly shared database consisting of 24,000 images provided by 120 Flickr (image based OSN) users. The authors propose the method based on the mixture of experts model to estimate the discriminating hyperplane from 56 dimensional aesthetic feature space. The experts are based on k-nearest neighbor, support vector machine and decision tree methods. To improve the model accuracy, they apply a systematic feature selection using statistical two sampled t-test. Moreover, the authors provide statistical feature analysis with graph visualization to show discriminating behavior between male and female for each feature. The proposed method achieves 77% accuracy in predicting gender, which is 5% better than recently reported results.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.276 · 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