MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409793571 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-247

Optimization and application of image recognition algorithm based on DouN-GNN model in two-node graph neural network

2025· article· en· W4409793571 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkImage (mathematics)AlgorithmNode (physics)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)GraphTheoretical computer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graph neural networks are widely used in image recognition.This paper introduces a two-node graph neural network DouN-GNN model based on a traditional graph neural network.By constructing two nodes, the features in the sample image that are difficult to extract by the shallow embedding network are extracted so that the network model can incorporate more multi-dimensional information about the sample image, thus enhancing image recognition accuracy.Aiming at the problem of the overall performance of the DouN-GNN model not reaching the ideal state, this paper adds three optimization modules to improve the DouN-GNN model and form the IGNN model.The optimized IGNN model is trained, tested, and applied to real-world scenarios such as agricultural weed recognition, natural resource enforcement, and video surveillance to explore the performance of the IGNN image recognition model constructed in this paper in real-world applications.The model achieves the highest accuracy of 98.39% in agricultural weed image recognition, and the classification accuracy for weeds is also high.In natural resources law enforcement and video surveillance, the model in this paper performs better than other image recognition models and can effectively meet the requirements of image recognition in practical application scenarios.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207