MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411355303 · doi:10.23977/jeis.2025.100118

Hybrid Novel Machine Learning and Computer Vision Research

2025· article· en· W4411355303 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electronics and Information Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningHuman–computer interactionComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing demands of society on the level of human intelligence, people are more demanding of human-like intelligent robots that can work normally in highly complex environments, perform non-specific tasks and have a high degree of initiative. This paper mainly discusses the research of hybrid novel machine learning and computer vision. This paper firstly describes the human-computer interaction based on "vision". The "visual" human-computer interaction system refers to the basic principle of human visual information, using a computer with a camera to detect and identify the user's actions through non-traditional input devices, and then perform automatic human-computer interaction in two-dimensional or three-dimensional space. Then, the machine learning prediction algorithm is introduced. Finally, the experimental design and result analysis of the robot vision learning method based on the human brain-like cognitive computing model are carried out. The experimental results show that from the final recognition rate, the recognition rate of the growing long-term memory is 93.2%, which is higher than the 91.4% of the VNAIL algorithm. After the robot has a growing long-term memory that works in conjunction with working memory, it can independently master visual cognitive ability, and incrementally store and update knowledge. Intellectual development, classification and recognition abilities are improved over methods without long-term memory.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electronics and Information ScienceSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207