Automatic segmentation and reconstruction of historical manuscripts in gradient domain
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
Separating content from noise in historical manuscripts is a fundamental task in digital palaeography. This study presents a fully automated segmentation approach based on the response of Harris corner detectors. The strength and clustering efficiency of the detected corners in the manuscripts are evaluated and used to segment the content from the background and noise. In addition, a manuscript reconstruction technique is proposed from the gradient field using the Poisson method to guide the interpolation. This reconstruction is able to remove noise significantly and hence enhances the contrast of the content thus making it easier for users to read and process these documents. The proposed approaches are evaluated using various standard databases to highlight their effectiveness and robustness to a multitude of noise and writing styles. Subjective and objective evaluations of the experimental results show that these techniques are able to successfully segment and reconstruct a very diverse set of scanned documents. An analysis of the results has also shown that the proposed technique compares favourably against similar counterparts.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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