MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064575647

Content-Based Indexing and Retrieval of Cultural Heritage Data: An Integrated Approach to Documentation with Application to the EROS

2006· article· en· W7064575647 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSearch engine indexingCultural heritageDocumentationThematic mapIndex (typography)Orientation (vector space)Information systemPainting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last few decades, Cultural Heritage documentation has been characterized by the massive use of digital media. Recently, the use of three-dimensional scanner technologies has provided us with the opportunity to obtain an unambiguous body of information characterizing the three-dimensional shapes of the artefacts. These vast repositories are now structured in databases, for easy access. Such databases contain not only the artefacts, but also relevant information such as restoration reports, data regarding quantitative analysis, chemical formulae, etc. It follows that storing such information is not enough. Rather, it should be indexed in order to be searched and retrieved easily and rapidly. In addition, the data should be preserved as technologies evolve over time, in order to ensure long-term preservation and access. This paper presents a framework for indexing and retrieval of 2D and 3D Cultural Heritage data. In our approach, novel archiving and indexing techniques, developed by the National Research Council of Canada, are employed. We present the results as applied to the EROS (EuropeanResearch Open System) Database of the C2RMF. This database consists of an impressive collection of scientific and technical data about paintings and artefacts found in all the museums of France. Our results indicate that our content-based approaches are able to accurately index and retrieve diverse images and 3D objects, based on the artefacts as well as their fragments. That is, using for example a fragment of a picture, we are able to retrieve the correct image even in conditions where lighting, orientation and the surroundings of the reference are different. The content-based retrieval system is also able to retrieve different views of the same object, e.g. of a Chalcidian amphora. In addition, our approach is able to find groups of similar images or objects, such as white figurines from the same period or 3D scans of an Anadyomene Venus.

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)0.005
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 score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.139 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationFrench-language works237,207