MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Sketch‐Based User Interface for Reconstructing Architectural Drawings

2007· article· en· W2056219830 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

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRendering (computer graphics)Computer scienceSketchPolygon (computer graphics)Computer graphics (images)Computer visionPerspective (graphical)PerceptionArtificial intelligence3D reconstructionAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a framework for interactive sketching that allows users to create three‐dimensional (3D) architectural models quickly and easily from a source drawing. The sketching process has four steps. (1) The user calibrates a viewing camera by specifying the origin and vanishing points of the drawing. (2) The user outlines surface polygons in the drawing. (3) A 3D reconstruction algorithm uses perceptual constraints to determine the closest visual fit for the polygon. (4) The user can then adjust aesthetic controls to produce several stylistic effects in the scene: a smooth transition between day and night rendering, a horizon knockout effect and entourage figures. The major advantage of our approach lies in the combination of perception‐based techniques, which allow us to minimize unnecessary interactions, and a hinging‐angle scheme, which shows significant improvement in numerical stability over previous optimization‐based 3D reconstruction algorithms. We also demonstrate how our reconstruction algorithm can be extended to work with perspective images, a feature unavailable in previous approaches.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.276 · 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