MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054144499 · doi:10.1109/iros.2005.1545168

Calibrating an active omnidirectional vision system

2005· article· en· W2054144499 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmnidirectional antennaComputer visionComputer scienceCalibrationArtificial intelligencePinhole (optics)Perspective (graphical)TriangulationProcess (computing)Omnidirectional cameraCamera resectioningMachine visionMathematicsOpticsAntenna (radio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a straightforward process for calibrating an active vision system containing both pinhole perspective and omnidirectional cameras. The perspective cameras can be easily calibrated using standard methods. Unfortunately, these methods are not suitable for omnidirectional cameras. Methods that rely on iterative least squares optimization, using a set of known image-world correspondences, are adopted for omnidirectional cameras. To ensure unbiased estimation of camera parameters, an omnidirectional calibration rig is employed so that nearly the entire field of view contains known calibration points. Measurement uncertainties collected from each stage of calibration are then combined to estimate the overall system uncertainty. This calibration process is evaluated experimentally by estimating the location of known points using triangulation, where the results achieved are comparable with the estimated system uncertainties.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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