MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401825516 · doi:10.18280/ria.380408

A Comparative Analysis Employing Adaptive Layers of RCNN Technique and Transfer Learning Pre-Trained Networks

2024· article· en· W4401825516 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maha A. Joodi, Fatin E. M. Al-Obaidi, Ali A. D. Al-Zuky

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransfer of learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aimed to classify two classes of vehicles, Tuktuk and Motorcycle, using a modified RCNN model.The MAjN_IRAQ Dataset, created from a camera system in Baghdad city, was used for training, detection, and classification of some vehicles to allow them to enter some crowded streets of Baghdad and to prevent others from entering the same streets.New layers were added and the number and size of filters were changed, which led to improve the process of training, detection and classification of vehicles with high accuracy, which leads to improving the proposed model's performance.The results showed that the modified RCNN model performed better when trained for 80 epochs.It improved performance measures such as precision, recall, and F1 score measure.The model was compared to other transfer learning methods (Alex Net, VGG16, and VGG19) and showed superior results for the Tuktuk class.The training and testing time for the proposed RCNNmodified model was also lower compared to the other models.At 80 epochs, the precision for the Tuktuk class was approximately 0.94, while for the Motorcycle class, it was approximately 0.89.The TPR was higher for the Tuktuk class at approximately 0.93, while the lower value was approximately 0.84 for VGG16.When the VGG16 model was used, the F1 score was better in the Motorcycle category (about 0.95) but worse in the Tuktuk category (0.86%).Both the suggested RCNN-modified model and the Alex Net model worked well in a reasonable amount of time.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207