MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1749337493 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3962

3D SHAPE ACQUISITION USING AN FTP-BASED METHOD IN PRODUCT MODELING

2011· article· en· W1749337493 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Chunsheng Yu, Lushen Wu, Qingjin Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCADFile Transfer ProtocolReverse engineeringObject (grammar)Process (computing)Product (mathematics)Engineering drawing3D modelingComputer visionFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceSolid modelingEngineeringMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional (3D) shape modeling is one of the most fundamental processes in CAD/CAM systems. There is a variety of methods to build 3D shapes for product design and manufacturing. The methods include defining a 3D object using solid or feature modeling methods, or building a 3D shape of the existing object using reverse engineering techniques. Image-based shape recovery techniques provide effective tools in reverse engineering to acquire 3D data of objects. This paper reports a simple method to reconstruct a 3D object from its 2D (two-dimensional) image for the product modeling. A method based on FTP (Fourier Transform Profilometry) phase analysis is proposed to measure the 3D surface of an object. The comparison of the FTP method with other methods is discussed and the process of the FTP method is provided. The experiment shows the accuracy and speed of the method.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207