MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247278569 · doi:10.4018/9781605669021.ch020

A Relative Fractal Dimension Spectrum for a Perceptual Complexity Measure

2011· book-chapter· en· W4247278569 on OpenAlexaff
W. Kinsner, R. Dansereau

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Fractal dimensionSpectrum (functional analysis)FractalMathematicsDimension (graph theory)PerceptionStatistical physicsArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePhysicsMathematical analysisPsychologyPure mathematicsData miningNeuroscienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a derivation of a new relative fractal dimension spectrum, DRq, to measure the dis-similarity between two finite probability distributions originating from various signals. This measure is an extension of the Kullback-Leibler (KL) distance and the Rényi fractal dimension spectrum, Dq. Like the KL distance, DRq determines the dissimilarity between two probability distibutions X and Y of the same size, but does it at different scales, while the scalar KL distance is a single-scale measure. Like the Rényi fractal dimension spectrum, the DRq is also a bounded vectorial measure obtained at different scales and for different moment orders, q. However, unlike the Dq, all the elements of the new DRq become zero when X and Y are the same. Experimental results show that this objective measure is consistent with the subjective mean-opinion-score (MOS) when evaluating the perceptual quality of images reconstructed after their compression. Thus, it could also be used in other areas of cognitive informatics.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207