MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1665133438 · doi:10.1109/gmai.2006.36

Modeling Deformable Objects for Computer-Aided Sculpting (CAS)Modeling Deformable Objects for Computer-Aided Sculpting (CAS)

2006· article· en· W1665133438 on OpenAlexaff
P.C. Igwe, George K. Knopf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage stitchingComputer scienceProcess (computing)Feature (linguistics)Point (geometry)SoftwareSurface (topology)Computer Aided DesignArtificial intelligenceReverse engineeringComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software tools for modeling complex freeform objects require the designer to use sophisticated procedures and complex protocols that do not inherently support the creative design process. Typical tasks include tedious control point manipulation and manual surface patch stitching operations. An interactive computer-aided sculpting (CAS) framework based upon deformable geometric models is described in this paper. The technique exploits the topology and learning algorithm of a self-organizing feature map (SOFM) to generate an adaptive volumetric mesh comprised of hexahedral elements. The pre-ordered lattice of the SOFM maintains the relative connectivity of neighbouring nodes in the mesh as it transforms under external and internal forces. Prior to virtual sculpting, the shape primitive is either retrieved from the object database or created by fitting a deformable mesh to representative surface points. Material and dynamic properties are incorporated into the deformable solid model by treating the surface and interior nodes as point masses connected with a network of springs. Illustrations are provided to demonstrate the virtual sculpting framework

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207