MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000391612 · doi:10.1145/2601097.2601102

Topology-varying 3D shape creation via structural blending

2014· article· en· W2000391612 on OpenAlexafffund
Ibraheem Alhashim, Honghua Li, Kai Xu, Junjie Cao, Rui Ma, Hao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMerge (version control)Topology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceTopological skeletonShape analysis (program analysis)GraphMathematicsActive shape modelTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce an algorithm for generating novel 3D models via topology-varying shape blending. Given a source and a target shape, our method blends them topologically and geometrically, producing continuous series of in-betweens as new shape creations. The blending operations are defined on a spatio-structural graph composed of medial curves and sheets. Such a shape abstraction is structure-oriented, part-aware, and facilitates topology manipulations. Fundamental topological operations including split and merge are realized by allowing one-to-many correspondences between the source and the target. Multiple blending paths are sampled and presented in an interactive, exploratory tool for creative 3D modeling. We show a variety of topology-varying 3D shapes generated via continuous structural blending between man-made shapes exhibiting complex topological differences, in real time.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations79
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207