MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310183431 · doi:10.18280/isi.270504

Distance Estimation Between Camera and Shrimp Underwater Using Euclidian Distance and Triangles Similarity Algorithm

2022· article· en· W4310183431 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arif Setiawan, Hadiyanto Hadiyanto, Catur Edi Widodo

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Diponegoro
KeywordsUnderwaterShrimpSimilarity (geometry)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionEuclidean distanceThresholdingMathematicsComputer scienceImage (mathematics)GeographyBiologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Camera is the main tool for monitoring shrimp underwater with a noninvasive method. Distance of the shrimp underwater with the varying camera causes the monitoring of the estimated shrimp size to be less accurate. This study provides a new solution to detect the distance of shrimp underwater with a camera using the Euclidian distance and triangle similarity algorithm. The problem raised in this study is how to measure the distance of a shrimp underwater with a camera. The method used has several stages, including using the grayscale image method, image thresholding, edge detection, detection of Region of Interest (ROI), determining the position of shrimp coordinates, calculating the length of shrimp coordinates, camera calibration using the triangle similarity algorithm, calculating the estimated distance of shrimp with the camera. The study results obtained a focal length value of 1298.58, the value of the distance between the shrimp and the camera (D') for 5 positions of shrimp underwater from 50 cm – 19.86 cm, and the RE value from 0% - 0.13%. In conclusion, this method can be used to measure the estimated distance between of moving shrimp and a camera with a low error rate.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207