MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Color Emotions for Image Classification and Retrieval

2008· article· en· W39969610 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Solli, Reiner Lenz

Bibliographic record

VenueConference on Colour in Graphics Imaging and Vision · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsEngineering Link (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImage retrievalArtificial intelligenceColor histogramRGB color modelColor imagePattern recognition (psychology)Content-based image retrievalHistogramFeature (linguistics)Visual WordImage (mathematics)Feature extractionInformation retrievalComputer visionImage processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many content-based image retrieval systems are not taking into account high level semantic information. In this paper we describe our attempts to include color-based emotion-related properties of images in the search. We show that using color emotion metrics in content-based image retrieval leads to interesting methods for image retrieval and classification based on semantic concepts. The color emotion metric used is derived from psychophysical experiments and uses three scales: activity, weight and heat. It was originally designed for single-color combinations and later extended to include pairs of colors. We show that a modified approach for statistical analysis of color emotions in images, involving transformations of ordinary RGB-histograms, provides a useful tool for image classification and retrieval. The methods used are both very fast in feature extraction, and descriptor vectors are very short. This is essential in our application where we intend to use it for searching huge image databases containing millions or billions of images.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.336
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference on Colour in Graphics Imaging and VisionSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207