Organizing heterogeneous scene collections through contextual focal points
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 introduce focal points for characterizing, comparing, and organizing collections of complex and heterogeneous data and apply the concepts and algorithms developed to collections of 3D indoor scenes. We represent each scene by a graph of its constituent objects and define focal points as representative substructures in a scene collection. To organize a heterogeneous scene collection, we cluster the scenes based on a set of extracted focal points: scenes in a cluster are closely connected when viewed from the perspective of the representative focal points of that cluster. The key concept of representativity requires that the focal points occur frequently in the cluster and that they result in a compact cluster. Hence, the problem of focal point extraction is intermixed with the problem of clustering groups of scenes based on their representative focal points. We present a co-analysis algorithm which interleaves frequent pattern mining and subspace clustering to extract a set of contextual focal points which guide the clustering of the scene collection. We demonstrate advantages of focal-centric scene comparison and organization over existing approaches, particularly in dealing with hybrid scenes, scenes consisting of elements which suggest membership in different semantic categories.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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