Tourist Behavior Recognition Through Scenic Spot Image Retrieval Based on Image Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The monitoring of tourist behaviors, coupled with the recognition of scenic spots, greatly improves the quality and safety of travel. The visual information is the underlying features of scenic spot images, but the semantics of the information have not been satisfactorily classified or described. Based on image processing technologies, this paper presents a novel method for scenic spot retrieval and tourist behavior recognition. Firstly, the framework of scenic spot image retrieval was constructed, followed by a detailed introduction to the extraction of scale invariant feature transform (SIFT) features. The SIFT feature extraction includes five steps: scale space construction, local space extreme point detection, precise positioning of key points, determination of key point size and direction, and generation of SIFT descriptor. Next, multiple correlated images were mined for the target scenic spot image, and the feature matching method between the target image and the set of scenic spot images was introduced in details. On this basis, a tourist behavior recognition method was designed based on temporal and spatial consistency. The proposed method was proved effective through experiments. The research results provide theoretical reference for image retrieval and behavior recognition in many other fields.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".