MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221079221 · doi:10.1364/josaa.446785

Analyzing color imaging failure on consumer-grade cameras

2022· article· en· W4221079221 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicColor Science and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)Remote sensingGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many efforts to employ consumer-grade cameras for home-based health and wellness monitoring. Such applications rely on users to capture images for analysis using their personal cameras in a home environment. When color is a primary feature for diagnostic algorithms, the camera requires calibration to ensure accurate color measurements. Given the importance of these diagnostic tests for the users' health and well-being, it is important to understand the conditions in which color calibration may fail. To this end, we analyzed a wide range of camera sensors and environmental lighting to determine (1) how often color calibration failure is likely to occur and (2) the underlying reasons for failure. Our analysis shows that it is rare to encounter a camera sensor and lighting condition combination that results in color imaging failure. Moreover, when color imaging does fail, the cause is almost always attributed to spectral poor environmental lighting and not the camera sensor. We believe this finding is useful for scientists and engineers developing color-based applications for use with consumer-grade cameras.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.247 · 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