MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966039687 · doi:10.1142/s0219467806002288

RAYSET: A TAXONOMY FOR IMAGE-BASED RENDERING

2006· article· en· W1966039687 on OpenAlexafffund
Minglun Gong, Yee‐Hong Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Image and Graphics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam Trusts
KeywordsRendering (computer graphics)Image warpingComputer scienceImage-based modeling and renderingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionTaxonomy (biology)Image-based lightingComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new concept, referred to as rayset, is discussed in this paper. It is a parametric function consisting of two mapping relations. The first one maps from a parameter space to the ray space, while the second one maps from the parameter space to the attribute space. A taxonomy is proposed based on the rayset concept whereby scene representations and scene reconstruction techniques used in image-based rendering are individually classified. Existing image-based rendering techniques are surveyed under the proposed classification. The review shows that different image-based scene representations, such as multiple-center-of-projection image and concentric mosaics, can be cast as different kinds of raysets. Different scene reconstruction approaches can be regarded as attempts to render different raysets. The concepts of rayset warping and rayset editing are also formulated. Under the rayset taxonomy, both techniques try to alter one of the mapping relations defined by a rayset without changing the other one.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Image and GraphicsSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207