MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044032519 · doi:10.1145/2766914

Interaction context (ICON)

2015· article· en· W2044032519 on OpenAlexaff
Ruizhen Hu, Chenyang Zhu, Oliver van Kaick, Ligang Liu, Ariel Shamir, Hao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconComputer scienceObject (grammar)Context (archaeology)Feature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceSimilarity (geometry)Computer visionSegmentationShape analysis (program analysis)Image (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a contextual descriptor which aims to provide a geometric description of the functionality of a 3D object in the context of a given scene. Differently from previous works, we do not regard functionality as an abstract label or represent it implicitly through an agent. Our descriptor, called interaction context or ICON for short, explicitly represents the geometry of object-to-object interactions. Our approach to object functionality analysis is based on the key premise that functionality should mainly be derived from interactions between objects and not objects in isolation. Specifically, ICON collects geometric and structural features to encode interactions between a central object in a 3D scene and its surrounding objects. These interactions are then grouped based on feature similarity, leading to a hierarchical structure. By focusing on interactions and their organization, ICON is insensitive to the numbers of objects that appear in a scene, the specific disposition of objects around the central object, or the objects' fine-grained geometry. With a series of experiments, we demonstrate the potential of ICON in functionality-oriented shape processing, including shape retrieval (either directly or by complementing existing shape descriptors), segmentation, and synthesis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.255
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations58
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207