MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061187529 · doi:10.1109/qomex.2011.6065698

Contrast effect on 3D and 2D video perception

2011· article· en· W2061187529 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
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Canadian institutionsTelus (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContrast (vision)PerceptionComputer scienceBrightnessContrast effectComputer visionArtificial intelligenceStimulus (psychology)Quality of experiencePsychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many factors and parameters that have an effect on the perceptual quality of 2D and 3D media. This paper investigates how the contrast affects 3D and 2D perceptions. We implemented the double stimulus continuous quality scale method to conduct subjective tests that evaluate the perceptual quality of experience of 3D video and its 2D counterpart at different contrast levels between the object of interest and the background. Our test set-up guarantees that the results are independent of the brightness reduction caused by a specific 3D viewing/displaying technology. Statistical analysis shows that the effect of contrast on the perceptual quality of 2D and 3D videos is similar.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Imaging TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207