MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020858126 · doi:10.1068/p5437

Spatial and Temporal Properties of Stereoscopic Surface Interpolation

2005· article· en· W2020858126 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

VenuePerception · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)StereoscopySurface (topology)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionTexture (cosmology)Computer scienceMultivariate interpolationMathematicsBisectionBilinear interpolationGeometryImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well established that under a wide range of conditions when a sparse collection of texture elements varies smoothly in depth, the spaces between the elements are assigned depth values. This disparity interpolation process has been studied in an effort to define some of its fundamental spatial and temporal constraints. To assess disparity interpolation we employed two tasks: a novel task that relies on the bisection of illusory boundaries created when subjective stereoscopic surfaces intersect, and one that relies on a 3-D shape discrimination. The results of both experiments show that there is no improvement in performance when texture density is increased from near 0.20 to 0.85 or when exposure duration is increased from 50-100 to 1000 ms. This lack of dependence on the addition of features that define the interpolated surface, along with the abrupt decline in performance below a critical value, is consistent with the view that surface interpolation is an important function of human stereoscopic vision.

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 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 score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.252 · 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