Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Hermite radial basis functions (HRBF) implicits reconstruct an implicit function which interpolates or approximates scattered multivariate Hermite data (i.e. unstructured points and their corresponding normals). Experiments suggest that HRBF implicits allow the reconstruction of surfaces rich in details and behave better than previous related methods under coarse and/or non‐uniform samplings, even in the presence of close sheets. HRBF implicits theory unifies a recently introduced class of surface reconstruction methods based on radial basis functions (RBF), which incorporate normals directly in their problem formulation. Such class has the advantage of not depending on manufactured offset‐points to ensure existence of a non‐trivial implicit surface RBF interpolant. In fact, we show that HRBF implicits constitute a particular case of Hermite–Birkhoff interpolation with radial basis functions, whose main results we present here. This framework not only allows us to show connections between the present method and others but also enable us to enhance the flexibility of our method by ensuring well‐posedness of an interesting combined interpolation/regularization approach.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".