MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240228776 · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2009.5206817

Early spatiotemporal grouping with a distributed oriented energy representation

2009· article· en· W4240228776 on OpenAlexaff
K.G. Derpanis, R.P. Wildes

Bibliographic record

Venue2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacetimeRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceAbstractionRaw dataTheoretical computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Motion (physics)AlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatiotemporal data is associated with vast amounts of raw samples. Given the limited computational resources typically available, an initial organization of this data supporting semantically meaningful lines of inquiry would facilitate efficient processing. In this paper, a new representation for grouping raw image data into a set of coherent spacetime regions is proposed. Unique in this proposal is that coherency is related to a richer description of local spacetime structure than generally considered. In particular, the representation describes the presence of particular oriented spacetime structures in a distributed manner. A key advantage of this representation is its ability to signal the presence of multiple oriented structures at a given spacetime location. More generally, the abstraction allows for the description and grouping of motion and non-motion-related patterns in a uniform manner. Empirical evaluation of the grouping method on synthetic and challenging natural imagery suggests its efficacy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207