Handwritten Odia Digit Recognition using Learning Systems: A Comparison of Neural Networks and Support Vector Machine Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Odia language is one of the many regional languages spoken in India. It is the official language of Odisha, a State in eastern India. The Odia language carries a 1500-year-old history and worldwide is spoken by more than 50 million people. The Odia digits are complex due to the presence of many curves in each character. Handwritten scripts are even more complex due to free-style writing. However, the development of an innovative machine learning model is essential because Odia scripts consist of a huge number of historical documents of more than 1000 years old. A robust automation method will help in converting historical documents into digital form and will help to preserve the documents. This will solve a big problem in society. This work experiments with handwritten Odia numerals by implementing two different classifiers. The first one is the implementation of a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and the second experiment implements a Support Vector Machine (SVM). Finally, results from both experiments have been compared. The dataset has been generated through software by writing the digits on MS Paint. Both CNN and SVM models have been implemented through Python programming to recognize the inputs into a particular class. Both training and testing of the models have been done using this dataset. The accuracy from the CNN Model is obtained to be 94.999% which is ≈95% and for SVM, the model accuracy is 86%. Comparing both results, it is concluded that the CNN model is comparatively better than the SVM classifier in the case of the proposed work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".