MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184222380 · doi:10.18280/ts.380318

Analysis Methods Used to Extract Fingerprints Features

2021· article· en· W3184222380 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinutiaeArtificial intelligenceFingerprint (computing)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Flexibility (engineering)Sensitivity (control systems)Rotation (mathematics)Image (mathematics)Computer visionFingerprint recognitionMathematicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fingerprint is used in many vital applications important to humans, which requires searching for an effective way to extract the characteristics of the fingerprint. In this paper we will study some of the most popular methods used to extract fingerprints features. For each method the efficiency, accuracy, flexibility and sensitivity for image rotation will be experimentally tested, measured, analyzed in order to give good recommendations of how and when to use a certain method of features extraction. A detailed comparison analysis between MLBP, K_means, WPT, Minutiae methods will be done using several color images in various rotation modes to insure the stability of image features.

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 score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · 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