MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1469842922 · doi:10.1117/12.2179591

Single-plane versus three-plane methods for relative range error evaluation of medium-range 3D imaging systems

2015· article· en· W1469842922 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Plane (geometry)Context (archaeology)OpticsApproximation errorMetric (unit)Image planeComputer scienceComputer visionAlgorithmGeometryPhysicsMathematicsMaterials scienceEngineeringImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the context of the ASTM E57 working group WK12373, we compare the two methods that had been initially proposed for calculating the relative range error of medium-range (2 m to 150 m) optical non-contact 3D imaging systems: the first is based on a single plane (single-plane assembly) and the second on an assembly of three mutually non-orthogonal planes (three-plane assembly). Both methods are evaluated for their utility in generating a metric to quantify the relative range error of medium-range optical non-contact 3D imaging systems. We conclude that the three-plane assembly is comparable to the single-plane assembly with regard to quantification of relative range error while eliminating the requirement to isolate the edges of the target plate face.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.238 · 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