MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1962650116 · doi:10.2312/egve/egve01/041-050

On the Utility of Semantic Constraints

2001· article· en· W1962650116 on OpenAlexaff
Graham Smith, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSemantics (computer science)Human–computer interactionProcess (computing)Computer graphicsObject (grammar)User interfaceGraphicsInterface (matter)Artificial intelligenceProgramming languageComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Content creation for computer graphics applications is a laborious process that requires skilled personnel. One fundamental problem is that manipulation of 3D objects with 2D user interfaces is very difficult for nonexperienced users. In this paper, we describe a system that uses semantic constraints to restrict object motion in a 3D scene, making interaction much simpler and more intuitive. We compare three different levels of semantic constraints in a 3D scene manipulation program with a 2D user interface. We show that the presented techniques are significantly more efficient than alternate techniques, which do not use semantics in their constraints. To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of 3D manipulation techniques with 2D devices and constraints.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207