MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Volume‐Surface Trees

2006· article· en· W2025795727 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

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon meshSubdivisionComputer scienceSubdivision surfaceSurface (topology)Cluster analysisEmbeddingComputer graphicsTree (set theory)Volume (thermodynamics)Point (geometry)DecompositionAlgorithmk-d treeComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsTree traversalGeometryCombinatoricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many algorithms in computer graphics improve their efficiency by using Hierarchical Space Subdivision Schemes (HS 3 ), such as octrees, kD‐trees or BSP trees. Such HS 3 usually provide an axis‐aligned subdivision of the 3D space embedding a scene or an object. However, the purely volume‐based behavior of these schemes often leads to strongly imbalanced surface clustering. In this article, we introduce the VS‐Tree, an alternative HS 3 providing efficient and accurate surface‐based hierarchical clustering via a combination of a global 3D decomposition at coarse subdivision levels, and a local 2D decomposition at fine levels near the surface. First, we show how to efficiently construct VS‐Trees over meshes and point‐based surfaces, and analyze the improvement it offers for cluster‐based surface simplification methods. Then we propose a new surface reconstruction algorithm based on the volume‐surface classification of the VS‐Tree. This new algorithm is faster than state‐of‐the‐art reconstruction methods and provides a final semi‐regular mesh comparable to the output of remeshing algorithms .

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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