MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110803523 · doi:10.18280/ts.370518

Retrieval of Multiple Spatiotemporally Correlated Images on Tourist Attractions Based on Image Processing

2020· article· en· W3110803523 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuang Lü, Qian Zhang, Yi Liu, Lei Liu, Qing Zhu, Jing Ke

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEducation Department of Henan Province
KeywordsComputer scienceRanking (information retrieval)Information retrievalWorkflowFeature (linguistics)Tourist attractionArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)TourismFeature extractionImage retrievalData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)DatabaseGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thriving of information technology (IT) has elevated the demand for intelligent query and retrieval of information about the tourist attractions of interest, which are the bases for preparing convenient and personalized itineraries. To realize accurate and rapid query of tourist attraction information (not limited to text information), this paper proposes a spatiotemporal feature extraction method and a ranking and retrieval method for multiple spatiotemporally correlated images (MSCIs) on tourist attractions based on deeply recursive convolutional network (DRCN). Firstly, the authors introduced the acquisition process of candidate spatiotemporally correlated images on tourist attractions, including both coarse screening and fine screening. Next, the workflow of spatiotemporal feature extraction from tourist attraction images was explained, as well as he proposed convolutional long short-term memory (ConvLSTM) algorithm. After that, the ranking model of MSCIs was constructed and derived. Experimental results demonstrate that our strategy is effective in the retrieval of tourist attraction images. The research results shed light on the fast and accurate retrieval of other types of images.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207