MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403757327 · doi:10.1007/979-8-8688-0763-3_3

Basic Filters for Photo Restoration

2024· book-chapter· en· W4403757327 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApress eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsDelta-Q Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As you work through the process of restoring photos, whether it be to repair minor rips and tears, for selective color correction, or to attempt to fill in gaps after straightening the image, you will encounter various additional correction issues. With older photos and slides, there are always situations where you need to deal with multiple scratches and dust particles that are small, but too time consuming to correct one at a time. After cropping and straightening the image, when you begin the process of filling in the gaps in the image using a selection tool like the Magic Wand tool and then the Edit > Content-Aware Fill command and Clone Stamp tool from Volume 1, you may find this to be a fairly easy process. However, the consequence of doing so without adequately cleaning up all the dust particles overall can result in incorporation of more dust added to the newly generated pixels around the border. Refer to Figure 3-1.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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