MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021893182 · doi:10.1142/s0218001405004071

OPTIMAL SUBSPACE ANALYSIS FOR FACE RECOGNITION

2005· article· en· W3021893182 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia UniversityHong Kong Baptist University
KeywordsLinear discriminant analysisSubspace topologyDiscriminative modelPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceFacial recognition systemComputer scienceRandom subspace methodProjection (relational algebra)Face (sociological concept)Linear subspaceProjection methodPrincipal component analysisDiscriminantMathematicsAlgorithmDykstra's projection algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fisher Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) has been successfully used as a data discriminantion technique for face recognition. This paper has developed a novel subspace approach in determining the optimal projection. This algorithm effectively solves the small sample size problem and eliminates the possibility of losing discriminative information. Through the theoretical derivation, we compared our method with the typical PCA-based LDA methods, and also showed the relationship between our new method and perturbation-based method. The feasibility of the new algorithm has been demonstrated by comprehensive evaluation and comparison experiments with existing LDA-based methods.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.231 · 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