MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204451878 · doi:10.4018/jdm.2021100101

Text-Image Retrieval With Salient Features

2021· article· en· W3204451878 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

VenueJournal of Database Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImage retrievalSalientVisual WordImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceAutomatic image annotationFeature (linguistics)Information retrievalObject (grammar)Pattern recognition (psychology)Semantics (computer science)Feature detection (computer vision)Matching (statistics)Representation (politics)Precision and recallComputer visionImage processingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, deep learning has achieved remarkable results in the text-image retrieval task. However, only global image features are considered, and the vital local information is ignored. This results in a failure to match the text well. Considering that object-level image features can help the matching between text and image, this article proposes a text-image retrieval method that fuses salient image feature representation. Fusion of salient features at the object level can improve the understanding of image semantics and thus improve the performance of text-image retrieval. The experimental results show that the method proposed in the paper is comparable to the latest methods, and the recall rate of some retrieval results is better than the current work.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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