MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904810076 · doi:10.1109/crv.2018.00028

Systematic Street View Sampling: High Quality Annotation of Power Infrastructure in Rural Ontario

2018· article· en· W2904810076 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin Dick, François Charih, Yasmina Souley Dosso, Luke Russell, James R. Green

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnnotationData scienceLimitingResource (disambiguation)Quality (philosophy)Data miningSampling (signal processing)Amazon rainforestMachine learningArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebTelecommunicationsEngineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Google Street View and the emergence of self-driving vehicles afford an unprecedented capacity to observe our planet. Fused with dramatic advances in artificial intelligence, the capability to extract patterns and meaning from those data streams heralds an era of insights into the physical world. In order to draw appropriate inferences about and between environments, the systematic selection of these data is necessary to create representative and unbiased samples. To this end, we introduce the Systematic Street View Sampler (S3) framework, enabling researchers to produce their own user-defined datasets of Street View imagery. We describe the algorithm and express its asymptotic complexity in relation to a new limiting computational resource (Google API Call Count). Using the Amazon Mechanical Turk distributed annotation environment, we demonstrate the utility of S3 in generating high quality representative datasets useful for machine vision applications. The S3 algorithm is open-source and available at github.com/CU-BIC/S3 along with the high quality dataset representing power infrastructure in rural regions of southern Ontario, Canada.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207