MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1885177706 · doi:10.1109/tdscen.1989.68103

Generic object recognition: building coarse 3D descriptions from line drawings

2003· article· en· W1885177706 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Bergevin, Martin D. Levine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceObject (grammar)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionArtificial intelligenceLine (geometry)Line drawingsSketch recognitionImage (mathematics)Human–computer interactionComputer visionNatural language processingEngineering drawingMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PARVO, a computer vision system that addresses the problems of fast and generic recognition of unexpected 3D objects from single 2D views, is introduced. Recently, RBC (recognition by components), a new human image understanding theory, has been proposed on the basis of the results of various psychological studies. However, no systematic computational evaluation of its many aspects has been reported yet. The object recognition system the authors have built is a first step toward this goal, since its design respects and makes explicit the main assumptions of the proposed theory. It analyzes single-view 2D line drawings of 3D objects typical of the ones used in human image understanding studies. The main issues related to generic object recognition are discussed, original algorithms and techniques specific to the author's systems are described, and results of the different processing stages of the system are presented.>

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207