MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164290443 · doi:10.1002/mma.7494

Advances in Bessel image sharpness analysis

2021· article· en· W3164290443 on OpenAlexafffund
Arjuna P. H. Don, James F. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGruppo Nazionale per le Strutture Algebriche, Geometriche e le loro Applicazioni
KeywordsVoxelBessel functionIntensity (physics)GrayscaleMathematicsImage (mathematics)Frame (networking)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces advances in the use of Bessel functions (cylinder functions) in achieving optimal sharpness of shapes delineated by collections of holes (dark valley regions) and bright regions in different areas of a video frame in terms of 4D voxels (grayscale video frame picture elements with coordinates ( x , y , g , t ) at location x , y with intensity g , and elapsed time t ). An image hole is an island of low voxel intensities surrounded by varying voxel intensity peaks. The basic approach is to identify dominant collections of lights (high voxel intensity peaks) and darks (low voxel intensity clusters) in video frames. A main finding in this paper is that surface objects (recorded in images) are sharper wherever there are preponderant contrasting differences between image lights and darks. These contrasting differences lead to the highly accurate detection of shape holes (dark valleys) that delineate surface shapes recorded in sequences of video frames. With the use of cylindrical Bessel functions introduced by F. W. Bessel in 1824, contrasting differences between peaks and valleys can be measured in terms of voxel intensities and voxel indices.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Methods in the Applied SciencesSame topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207