MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014175289 · doi:10.1109/coginf.2007.4341912

Underwater surface recovery and segmentation

2007· article· en· W2014175289 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Jenkin, Andrew Hogue, Andrew German, Sunbir Gill, Anna Topol, Stephanie Wilson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderwaterComputer scienceConstruct (python library)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionSegmentationRepresentation (politics)Inertial frame of reference3D reconstructionInertial measurement unitMarine engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The underwater environment presents many challenges for robotic sensing including highly variable lighting and the presence of dynamic objects such as fish and suspended particulate matter. The dynamic six-degree-of-freedom nature of the environment presents further challenges due to unpredictable external forces such as current and surge. Despite these challenges the aquatic environment presents many real and practical applications for robotic systems. A common requirement of many of these tasks is the need to construct accurate 3D representations of specific environmental structures. In order to address these needs we have developed a stereo vision inertial sensing device that has been successfully deployed to reconstruct complex 3D structures in both the aquatic and terrestrial domains. The sensor combines 3D information, obtained using stereo vision algorithms, with 3DOF inertial data to construct 3D models of the environment. The resulting model representation is then converted to a textured polygonal mesh for later processing. Semi-automatic tools have been developed to aid in the processing of these representations. Reconstruction and segmentation of coral and other underwater structures obtained with the sensor are presented.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207