MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386810354 · doi:10.18280/ria.370423

Optimizing Region Detection in Enhanced Infrared Images Using Deep Learning

2023· article· en· W4386810354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janani Venkatachalam

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfraredDeep learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceRemote sensingComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)GeologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infrared imaging, with its unique applications in fields such as wildlife monitoring, has garnered considerable interest.Nevertheless, accurate detection and segmentation of animal regions in enhanced infrared images present significant challenges.This study proposes an optimization framework that leverages deep learning techniques to improve the performance of animal region segmentation in these images.The primary focus of this work is the investigation and implementation of the Region-based Convolutional Neural Network (R-CNN) object detection algorithm.By adapting and fine-tuning the R-CNN model, an increased accuracy and robustness in animal region segmentation is achieved.Transfer learning was utilized in this study, allowing for the application of knowledge learned from a large, albeit different but related, dataset to the task at hand.By fine-tuning the R-CNN model on a smaller dataset of annotated infrared images, the model's ability to accurately segment animal regions is enhanced, even when training samples are limited.This approach helps overcome the constraints associated with training deep learning models from scratch, particularly when available labeled data is scarce.The performance of the optimized R-CNN model was assessed using a comprehensive set of segmentation metrics, including pixel-based metrics such as Intersection over Union (IoU).The optimized R-CNN model outperformed existing methods in terms of segmentation accuracy, achieving higher IoU scores, Dice coefficients, and pixel accuracies.Additionally, the fine-tuned R-CNN model demonstrated improved precision, recall, and F1 score, indicating an overall superior performance in accurately detecting and segmenting animal regions.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207