MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W39555859 · doi:10.1167/7.9.513

[no title]

2010· article· en· W39555859 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Éthier-Majcher, Daniel Fiset, Caroline Blais, Martin Arguin, Daniel N. Bub, Frédéric Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversity of VictoriaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)FontSentenceComputer scienceWord (group theory)Contrast (vision)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceConfusionSpeech recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)LinguisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A word is unreadable unless its letters are separately identifiable. Taken from the recent article of Pelli, Farell and Moore (2003), this sentence underlines the crucial importance of letter identification for visual word recognition. Congruently, a fundamental purpose in the study of visual letter recognition is the discovery of the features responsible for accurate letter identification. In the last three decades, researchers have proposed sets of individual features, which predict relatively well letter identification performance and letter confusions. However, these descriptions are usually based more on intuitions regarding the information underlying letter similarity or on confusion matrices than on empirical data directly assessing the information used to recognize letters accurately. In the present study, we aim to reveal the potent features (Gosselin & Schyns, 2002) mediating uppercase and lowercase letter identification in Arial font letters. For this purpose, we explicitly determined the portions of each individual letter which drives its accurate identification. Six participants each identified 26,000 uppercase and lowercase Arial font letters (for a total of 312,000 trials) sampled in image location and spatial frequency by Bubbles (Gosselin & Schyns, 2001). Separate analyses for each individual letter revealed the potent features for uppercase and lowercase Arial font letter identification. The results show that high spatial frequencies support the identification of features that discriminate among visually similar letters (e.g., ‘O’ and ‘Q’ in uppercase). In contrast, low spatial frequencies carry information about the features that are shared among subsets of visually similar letters. These observations are discussed in relation to a letter identification model in which low spatial frequencies are processed initially to determine the subset of the alphabet the target belongs to. Then, high spatial frequencies are processed for information allowing unique letter identification.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1300.090

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 head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207