MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W156016171

Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer animation

2003· article· en· W156016171 on OpenAlexaff
Rick Parent, Karan Singh, David E. Breen, Ming C. Lin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationComputer scienceComputer animationCharacter animationComputer facial animationVariety (cybernetics)MultimediaField (mathematics)The artsComputer graphics (images)Human–computer interactionVisual artsArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Symposium on Computer Animation is an emerging, eminent forum for dissemination of the latest research results in computer animation. The goal of the symposium is to provide an opportunity for researchers in computer animation to interact with one another, share new results, and discuss emerging directions for the field. This year the Symposium on Computer Animation is co-located with SIGGRAPH and held just prior to the main conference in order to attract a broad range of participants.These proceedings contain the 23 long papers and 15 short papers presented at the Symposium on Computer Animation, selected from over 100 submissions. Each paper was reviewed by at least 5 members of the program committee and external reviewers. The remarkable quality of the submissions made the final acceptance decision very difficult. The selected papers cover a variety of topics ranging from physically-based simulation, facial and articulated body animation, motion capture and editing, natural phenomena and procedural modeling, animated arts and presentations, autonomous characters, and novel interfaces for animation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.040

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations200
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207