MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1820686657 · doi:10.1109/tim.2017.2676258

Human Head Stiffness Rendering

2017· article· en· W1820686657 on OpenAlexaff
Minggao Wei, Yang Liu, Haiwei Dong, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman headRendering (computer graphics)Computer graphics (images)EngineeringStructural engineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human head stiffness rendering is important in haptic interactive applications, because it defines a realistic physical interaction between human operator(s) and a human avatar created in a virtual environment. In this paper, we propose a hybrid method for rendering the appropriate stiffness property on a human head polygon mesh that combines popular haptic rendering approaches: study the sophisticated deformation behavior of a deformable object and then interpret and render this behavior as the resulting stiffness property on the individual's head mesh. The stiffness property is estimated from a registered and shape-adapted skull template mesh as a reference and modeled from the deformation behavior of soft tissue in a finite-element method (FEM) framework. Our method consists of different procedures, including facial landmark detection, model registration using the iterative closest point technique, adaptive shape modification processed with a modified weighted free-form deformation, and FEM simulation. After the stiffness property is rendered on a head polygon mesh, we perform a user study by inviting participants to experience the haptic feedback rendered from our results. According to the participants' feedback, the stiffness property of the head polygon mesh is properly rendered, because it satisfies their expectations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207