MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Algorithms for Interactive Editing of Level Set Models

2005· article· en· W1970846581 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsEngineering Link (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Bounding overwatchRepresentation (politics)ComputationProcess (computing)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Level set models combine a low‐level volumetric representation, the mathematics of deformable implicit surfaces and powerful, robust numerical techniques to produce a novel approach to shape design. While these models offer many benefits, their large‐scale representation and numerical requirements create significant challenges when developing an interactive system. This paper describes the collection of techniques and algorithms (some new, some pre‐existing) needed to overcome these challenges and to create an interactive editing system for this new type of geometric model. We summarize the algorithms for producing level set input models and, more importantly, for localizing/minimizing computation during the editing process. These algorithms include distance calculations, scan conversion, closest point determination, fast marching methods, bounding box creation, fast and incremental mesh extraction, numerical integration and narrow band techniques. Together these algorithms provide the capabilities required for interactive editing of level set models.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.258 · 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