Home About us Contact | |||
New Objects (new + object)
Selected AbstractsDempster,Shafer models for object recognition and classificationINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS, Issue 3 2006A.P. Dempster We consider situations in which each individual member of a defined object set is characterized uniquely by a set of variables, and we propose models and associated methods that recognize or classify a newly observed individual. Inputs consist of uncertain observations on the new individual and on a memory bank of previously identified individuals. Outputs consist of uncertain inferences concerning degrees of agreement between the new object and previously identified objects or object classes, with inferences represented by Dempster,Shafer belief functions. We illustrate the approach using models constructed from independent simple support belief functions defined on binary variables. In the case of object recognition, our models lead to marginal belief functions concerning how well the new object matches objects in memory. In the classification model, we compute beliefs and plausibilities that the new object lies in defined subsets of an object set. When regarded as similarity measures, our belief and plausibility functions can be interpreted as candidate membership functions in the terminology of fuzzy logic. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Int Syst 21: 283,297, 2006. [source] The Birth of Words: Ten-Month-Olds Learn Words Through Perceptual SalienceCHILD DEVELOPMENT, Issue 2 2006Shannon M. Pruden A core task in language acquisition is mapping words onto objects, actions, and events. Two studies investigated how children learn to map novel labels onto novel objects. Study 1 investigated whether 10-month-olds use both perceptual and social cues to learn a word. Study 2, a control study, tested whether infants paired the label with a particular spatial location rather than to an object. Results show that 10-month-olds can learn new labels and do so by relying on the perceptual salience of an object instead of social cues provided by a speaker. This is in direct contrast to the way in which older children (12-, 18-, and 24-month-olds) learn and extend new object names. [source] Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation,state building, migration and the social sciencesGLOBAL NETWORKS, Issue 4 2002Andreas Wimmer Methodological nationalism is understood as the assumption that the nation/state/society is the natural social and political form of the modern world. We distinguish three modes of methodological nationalism that have characterized mainstream social science, and then show how these have influenced research on migration. We discover parallels between nationalist thinking and the conceptualization of migration in postwar social sciences. In a historical tour d'horizon, we show that this mainstream concept has developed in close interaction with nation,state building processes in the West and the role that immigration and integration policies have played within them. The shift towards a study of ,transnational communities', the last phase in this process , was more a consequence of an epistemic move away from methodological nationalism than of the appearance of new objects of observation. The article concludes by recommending new concepts for analysis that, on the one hand, are not coloured by methodological nationalism and, on the other hand, go beyond the fluidism of much contemporary social theory. [source] A general advancing front technique for filling space with arbitrary objectsINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING, Issue 12 2004Rainald Löhner Abstract An advancing front space-filling technique for arbitrary objects has been developed. The input required consists of the specification of the desired mean point distance in space and an initial triangulation of the surface. One object at a time is removed from the active front, and, if possible, surrounded by admissible new objects. This operation is repeated until no active objects are left. Two techniques to obtain maximum packing are discussed: closest object placement (during generation) and move/enlarge (after generation). Different deposition or layering patterns can be achieved by selecting the order in which objects are eliminated from the active front. Timings show that for simple objects like spheres the scheme is considerably faster than volume mesh generators based on the advancing front technique, making it possible to generate large (> 106) yet optimal clouds of points in a matter of minutes on a PC. For more general objects, the performance may degrade depending on the complexity of the penetration checks. Several examples are included that demonstrate the capabilities of the technique. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Bodensystematik und Bodenklassifikation Teil I: GrundbegriffeJOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION AND SOIL SCIENCE, Issue 1 2005Christoph Albrecht Abstract Bodenordnungssysteme lassen sich meist nach zwei Prinzipien entwickeln: Entweder werden nur rein bodenkundliche Informationen als kategorisierendes Merkmal verwendet (pedogenetische Faktoren/Prozesse), oder die Kategorienbildung erfolgt problemorientiert anhand ausgewählter Parameter. Die meisten der weltweit verwendeten Bodenordnungssysteme lassen sich nach ihrer Grundausrichtung einem der beiden Typen zuordnen. Diese Betrachtungsweise ist nicht neu und wird in der Literatur mit unterschiedlichen Begriffen und Begriffsinhalten dargestellt. In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden die verschiedenen Definitionen von Systematik, Klassifikation, Taxonomie und Identifizierung zusammengefasst und geordnet. Dabei fällt auf, dass Begriffe mit sehr unterschiedlichen Inhalten oft synonym verwendet werden. Grundgedanke unserer Überlegungen ist die Trennung von Systematik, Klassifikation und Identifizierung. Systematik ist die grundsätzliche wissenschaftlich-deduktive Gliederung von Objekten in systematische Einheiten. Dabei soll das gesamte Wissen eines Fachgebietes in eine überschaubare Form gebracht werden, im Mittelpunkt stehen sowohl die umfassende Beschreibung einzelner Objekte als auch die Beziehungen zwischen den Objekten. Im Gegensatz dazu ist eine Klassifikation die zielorientiert-induktive Gliederung von Objekten. Die entstehenden Klassen werden nur anhand ausgewählter Parameter abgegrenzt, womit ein schneller Überblick bei speziellen Fragestellungen ermöglicht wird. Die Identifizierung ist die Einordnung von neuen Objekten in eine bestehende Systematik oder Klassifikation. Eine zweifelsfreie Identifizierung erfordert die Messbarkeit der kategorisierenden Merkmale. Bei einer genetisch angelegten Bodensystematik sind die Merkmale die Boden bildenden Prozesse und Faktoren. Da sie beim gegenwärtigen Kenntnisstand oft nicht messbar sind, bleiben Versuche, einen Boden in eine Systematik einzuordnen, häufig hypothetisch und dadurch subjektiv. Die Ergebnisse einer Bodensystematisierung sind daher oft anfechtbar, weil sie nicht durch Messwerte verifiziert werden können. Im Gegensatz dazu erlauben Bodenklassifikationen objektive Profilansprachen. Da jedoch die Festlegung der Grenzwerte eher pragmatisch nach Zweckmäßigkeit geschieht und nicht wissenschaftlich anhand von Prozessintensitäten, ist die Verwendung als grundlegendes Ordnungssystem eines Wissenschaftsgebietes nicht möglich. Die Bodenkunde benötigt beide Arten von Ordnungssystemen, um wissenschaftliche und praktische Ansprüche gleichermaßen erfüllen zu können, jedoch erfordern die Vollendung und Verifizierung der Systematik umfangreiche Forschungsarbeiten. Kurzfristig ist dieses Problem nur durch die Entwicklung einer kennwertbasierten Klassifikation lösbar, mit der die Kategorien der bestehenden Systematik so gut wie möglich nachgebildet werden. Langfristig ist die exakte Erforschung und Modellierung der Boden bildenden Prozesse aber unumgänglich. Soil systematics and classification systems Part I: Fundamentals Soil-ordering systems are primarily based and developed on one of two underlying principles: They are either categorized according to soil-forming processes, or the formation of categories develops by chosen parameters. This perspective has already been established in the literature, though it is often confusing as many terms are defined and applied differently. In this contribution, the various definitions of systematics, classification, taxonomy, and identification will be clearly differentiated and summarized. The core of our work is to clearly define and contrast three terms: systematics, classification, and identification. Systematics is the fundamental scientific and deductive ordering of objects into systematic units. The purpose of this approach is to organize the entire spectrum of knowledge within a discipline into a transparent and manageable form. Classification, in direct contrast to systematics, is goal-oriented and an inductive ordering of objects. Thus, the ordering scheme consists of classes which are clearly parameterized. Identification is the ordering of new objects into an already existing systematics or classification system. Close attention is paid to both the differences and the similarities between a systematics and a classification system, especially pertaining to their practical applications. The identification requires that the category-forming characteristics can be measured (e.g., for soil systematics, these are the soil-forming processes and factors). Currently, it is unfortunately not feasible to objectively quantify most soil-forming processes. Thus, most attempts at categorizing soils by systematics are hypothetical and highly subjective in nature. The resulting identification derived from the soil systematics approach is open to questions and contestable, since a graded measuring system does not yet exist to verify these determinations. In contrast, a soil-classification system does allow an objective soil-profile identification, although such systems are conceived pragmatically and designed for a practical purpose (e.g., not scientifically based on process intensities). Unfortunately, such a classification system cannot be applied as a universal scientific categorization system due to this method of conception. Both categorization approaches are required in soil science in order to satisfy both the practical and the scientific aspects of the field. However, substantial research must be done to complete and verify systematics. The only viable short-term solution is through the development of a graded classification system where the categories of the system are directly derived from the current systematics approach. In the long run both the exact investigation and the detailed modeling of the soil-forming processes are inevitable. [source] Youth Justice in New Zealand: Restorative Justice in Practice?JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES, Issue 2 2006Gabrielle Maxwell The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 put in place new objects, principles, and procedures for youth justice in New Zealand. Both the philosophy underpinning this system and the use of family group conferences exemplify a restorative justice approach that has now been adopted in many other countries. This article describes these changes and presents some of the results of recently published research that examines the extent to which young offenders have been diverted from courts and custody, held accountable for their actions, and had their wellbeing enhanced. It suggests that the New Zealand youth justice system has achieved many but not all of its goals, and that there are still aspects where improvement is possible. [source] Finding fame: painting and the making of careers in Renaissance ItalyRENAISSANCE STUDIES, Issue 1 2010Michelle O'Malley Most of the papers in this collection consider issues concerning the design and function of objects; they address their intended sites, the requirements of their owners and the import they held for their users. The objects made by artists and artisans were also nexus points in their careers: objects stood as much for their makers as for their owners. They constituted connections between artists and their clients, and they often acted as agents for the creation of new objects. This paper looks at the design and function of works of art from the point of view of the profession. Specifically, it considers the role key commissions played in the creation of reputations and the launch of stellar careers. Looking at the very early careers of Botticelli, Ghirlandaio and Perugino, the paper investigates connections among clients and the paths individuals took to hiring the painters, examines the response the painters made to their early commissions, and looks at the associations and reputations these painters built up in the years before they were hired to paint the walls of the Sistine chapel in 1481. It considers the role of Cosimo Rosselli, the fourth member of the Sistine team, in identifying and defining fame, and proposes a new way of considering the route Florentine painters took to painting the chapel newly built by Sixtus IV. The paper aims to demonstrate the significance of works for the trajectory of their makers' professional lives and to suggest how certain works, in specific contexts, attracted clients and drew new works into being. [source] |