Emotional Analysis and Annotation of Tourism Landscape Images Based on Tourist Experience
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourist attractions need to optimize and upgrade their tourist services and tourist experience, according to the trendy topics on the Internet and the we media. This calls for objective evaluation of tourist experience, and accurately depiction of tourist emotions upon looking at tourism landscape images (TLIs). However, most of the existing methods for image emotional analysis cannot overcome the semantic gap, or handle an extraordinarily large image set. To solve the problems, this paper implements emotional analysis and annotation of TLIs based on tourist experience Firstly, the flow of tourist experience evaluation was expounded, and a model was constructed to evaluate tourist experience. Next, the forms of feature-based semantic information were specified for TLIs, and the emotional features were calculated for such images. After that, a semantic selection model was established to generate the emotional feature subsets of TLIs. Finally, the proposed model was verified through experiments on image emotional classification and annotation, and the relevant results were analyzed in details.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it