Micrography QR Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a novel algorithm to generate micrography QR codes, a novel machine-readable graphic generated by embedding a QR code within a micrography image. The unique structure of micrography makes it incompatible with existing methods used to combine QR codes with natural or halftone images. We exploited the high-frequency nature of micrography in the design of a novel deformation model that enables the skillful warping of individual letters and adjustment of font weights to enable the embedding of a QR code within a micrography. The entire process is supervised by a set of visual quality metrics tailored specifically for micrography, in conjunction with a novel QR code quality measure aimed at striking a balance between visual fidelity and decoding robustness. The proposed QR code quality measure is based on probabilistic models learned from decoding experiments using popular decoders with synthetic QR codes to capture the various forms of distortion that result from image embedding. Experiment results demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed method in generating micrography QR codes of high quality from a wide variety of inputs. The ability to embed QR codes with multiple scales makes it possible to produce a wide range of diverse designs. Experiments and user studies were conducted to evaluate the proposed method from a qualitative as well as quantitative perspective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".