MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026066447 · doi:10.1145/2816795.2818059

Garment modeling with a depth camera

2015· article· en· W2026066447 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

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFocus (optics)CollarRGB color modelComputer visionComponent (thermodynamics)Computer graphics (images)Engineering drawingEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous garment modeling techniques mainly focus on designing novel garments to dress up virtual characters. We study the modeling of real garments and develop a system that is intuitive to use even for novice users. Our system includes garment component detectors and design attribute classifiers learned from a manually labeled garment image database. In the modeling time, we scan the garment with a Kinect and build a rough shape by KinectFusion from the raw RGBD sequence. The detectors and classifiers will identify garment components (e.g. collar, sleeve, pockets, belt, and buttons) and their design attributes (e.g. falbala collar or lapel collar, hubble-bubble sleeve or straight sleeve ) from the RGB images. Our system also contains a 3D deformable template database for garment components. Once the components and their designs are determined, we choose appropriate templates, stitch them together, and fit them to the initial garment mesh generated by KinectFusion. Experiments on various different garment styles consistently generate high quality results.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.195 · 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