Research on the Identification of Hand-Painted and Machine-Printed Thangka Using CBIR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thangka is a unique painting art form in Tibetan culture. As Thangka was awarded as the first batch of national intangible cultural heritage, it has been brought into focus. Unfortunately, illegal merchants sell fake Thangkas at high prices for profit. Therefore, identifying hand-painted Thangkas from machine-printed fake Thangkas is important for protecting national intangible cultural heritage. The paper uses Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) techniques to analyze the color, shape, texture, and other characteristics of hand-painted and machine- printed Thangka images, in order to identify Thangkas. Based on the database collected and established by this project team, we use Local Binary Pattern (LBP) texture analysis combined with the color histogram of Hue,aturation, Value (HSV) space, scale invariance, K-Means clustering, perceptual Difference Hash (DHASH) and other algorithms to extract the color lines and texture features of Thangka images, in order to identify hand-painted and machine-printed Thangkas. Three algorithms, LBP algorithm and HSV algorithm and DHASH algorithm, are compared, and the experimental results show that the color histogram algorithm based on HSV space is efficient. This algorithm can be applied broadly to retrieve and identify hand-painted Thangkas and help protect this precious intangible cultural heritage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".