MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031033272 · doi:10.1145/3387168.3389112

Impact of Font on Computer Recognition of License Plates on Automobiles

2019· article· en· W3031033272 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

VenueProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Vision, Image and Signal Processing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle License Plate Recognition
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFontComputer scienceConfusionLicenseArtificial intelligenceContext (archaeology)Computer visionSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chosen font type in the license plate (LP) plays a vital role in the recognition phase in computer-based operations. Some fonts are challenging for humans to read; however, other fonts are challenging for computer systems to recognize. Here, we present two sets of results for font evaluation: font anatomy results, and recognition results for commercial products. For anatomy results, two typical LP fonts are considered: Mandatory, and Driver Gothic. Moreover, we evaluate the effect of these fonts in context for two datasets using two commercial products: OpenALPR and Plate Recognizer. The font anatomy results revealed some important confusion cases and some quality features of both fonts. The obtained results show that the Driver font has less severe confusion cases than the Mandatory font.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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