Qualitative organization of collections of shapes via quartet analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a method for organizing a heterogeneous collection of 3D shapes for overview and exploration. Instead of relying on quantitative distances, which may become unreliable between dissimilar shapes, we introduce a qualitative analysis which utilizes multiple distance measures but only in cases where the measures can be reliably compared. Our analysis is based on the notion of quartets , each defined by two pairs of shapes, where the shapes in each pair are close to each other, but far apart from the shapes in the other pair. Combining the information from many quartets computed across a shape collection using several distance measures, we create a hierarchical structure we call categorization tree of the shape collection. This tree satisfies the topological (qualitative) constraints imposed by the quartets creating an effective organization of the shapes. We present categorization trees computed on various collections of shapes and compare them to ground truth data from human categorization. We further introduce the concept of degree of separation chart for every shape in the collection and show the effectiveness of using it for interactive shapes exploration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it