MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153849114 · doi:10.30837/bi.2019.2(93).11

A SURVEY OF METHODS OF TEXT-TO-IMAGE TRANSLATION

2019· article· en· W3153849114 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

VenueBionics of Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsCompute Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Image translationKey (lock)Rank (graph theory)Generative grammarTranslation (biology)Artificial intelligenceInformation retrievalPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The given work considers the existing methods of text compression (finding keywords or creating summary) using RAKE, Lex Rank, Luhn, LSA, Text Rank algorithms; image generation; text-to-image and image-to-image translation including GANs (generative adversarial networks). Different types of GANs were described such as StyleGAN, GauGAN, Pix2Pix, CycleGAN, BigGAN, AttnGAN. This work aims to show ways to create illustrations for the text. First, key information should be obtained from the text. Second, this key information should be transformed into images. There were proposed several ways to transform keywords to images: generating images or selecting them from a dataset with further transforming like generating new images based on selected ow combining selected images e.g. with applying style from one image to another. Based on results, possibilities for further improving the quality of image generation were also planned: combining image generation with selecting images from a dataset, limiting topics of image generation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.302 · 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