MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043223183 · doi:10.1142/s0219467805001938

STATE OF THE ART IN THE REALISTIC MODELING OF PLANT VENATION SYSTEMS

2005· article· en· W2043223183 on OpenAlexafffund
Julia Taylor-Hell, Gladimir V. G. Baranoski, Jon Rokne

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Image and Graphics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGreenhouse Technology and Climate Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer graphicsImage (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Theoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modeling of plants is an active area of research in computer graphics and the geometrical modeling of veins is essential for obtaining plant images with a realistic appearance. The venation patterns determine the anisotropy of plant tissues, and affect the shadowing and masking of light incident on these tissues, hence the images. The current trend in the area of plant image generation is to aim for realism using biologically-based and predictable algorithms. Such algorithms do not depend on ad hoc parameters that have to be tuned whenever a new image is being generated. A number of plant image generation algorithms are now available in the literature that have achieved an impressive level of sophistication in many aspects, generating realistic looking images. One notable exception is the geometrical modeling of veins. This remains as an open problem in computer graphics. In this paper we review the state of art of the realistic simulation of plant venation systems from a geometric modeling perspective and propose a specified set of requirements for evaluating possible solutions for this problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Image and GraphicsSame topicGreenhouse Technology and Climate ControlFrench-language works237,207