MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231631659 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2004.1334208

Texture segmentation comparison using grey level co-occurrence probabilities and Markov random fields

2004· article· en· W4231631659 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

VenueProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceTexture (cosmology)Consistency (knowledge bases)SegmentationFeature (linguistics)Image segmentationConfusionMarkov chainComputer scienceBoundary (topology)Random fieldImage textureWindow (computing)Markov random fieldMarkov processMathematicsGaussianGrey levelStatisticsImage (mathematics)PsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The discrimination ability of texture features derived from Gaussian Markov random fields (GMRFs) and grey level co-occurrence probabilities (GLCPs) are compared and contrasted. More specifically, the role of window size in feature consistency and separability as well as the role of multiple textures within a window are investigated. GLCPs are demonstrated to have improved discrimination ability relative to MRFs with decreasing window size, an important concept when performing image segmentation. On the other hand, GLCPs are more sensitive to texture boundary confusion than GMRFs.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.244 · 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