Systematic literature review on optimization and exploration of retrieval methods digital image of ancient manuscript as an attempt conservation of cultural heritage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digitization technology has developed in the preservation of cultural heritage, especially ancient manuscripts. In this context, image retrieval methods allow for efficient access to the information contained in ancient manuscripts. Optimization techniques play a role in building an effective image retrieval method. This paper presents a systematic literature review that focuses on the role of optimization in digital image retrieval methods for preserving ancient manuscripts as part of cultural heritage preservation. This paper is organized based on the following research questions: (1) What are the research objectives regarding optimization in digital image retrieval of ancient manuscripts?; (2) What is the role of optimization in image retrieval methods for the preservation of ancient manuscripts?; and (3) How have existing studies determined the formulation of novel and new research? This study involved searching articles through Scopus, Dimensions, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases and using bibliometric analysis to visualize research themes and trends. The results of the literature review show that research related to the role of optimization in the digital image retrieval method of ancient manuscripts is still open and this paper can be used as a reference for further research on this topic.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".