MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409603817 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-154

Study on the Relevance of Jiangnan Garden Design Elements and Aesthetic Context Based on Visual Recognition

2025· article· en· W4409603817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Context (archaeology)AestheticsPsychologyArtHistoryPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jiangnan gardens have become a valuable cultural heritage of China with its elegant garden style.The article proposes a binocular visual recognition system by analyzing the composition of the garden spatial elements and performing feature fusion based on scene-driven coefficients.Ablation experiments are conducted on each part of the constructed data enhancement framework for generating the design of the Jiangnan garden plan, which is applied to generate a set of high-quality datasets and apply the data to image segmentation for generating the design of the Jiangnan garden.The algorithm training is carried out by applying the generated design plan dataset.On this basis, the data from the actual Jiangnan garden research and the spatially quantized feature data are used to do the correlation analysis between the design elements and the aesthetic mood.The data enhancement framework constructed in this paper improves the IOU of ST elements to 0.537, and the average intersection and merger ratio MIOU is 0.389.It shows that the data evaluation framework based on visual recognition is suitable for the study of plan generation of Jiangnan gardens.The correlation coefficients of connection value, spatial control value, average depth value, and integration degree regarding aesthetic context with the data of Jiangnan garden design elements are 0.173, 0.301, -0.278, and 0.325, respectively, which indicate that there is a significant correlation between all of them.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207