MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092705708 · doi:10.1145/641865.641868

View planning for automated three-dimensional object reconstruction and inspection

2003· review· en· W2092705708 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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceTriangulationProcess (computing)Object (grammar)Frame (networking)3D reconstructionSet (abstract data type)Range (aeronautics)Reference frameTask (project management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laser scanning range sensors are widely used for high-precision, high-density three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction and inspection of the surface of physical objects. The process typically involves planning a set of views, physically altering the relative object-sensor pose, taking scans, registering the acquired geometric data in a common coordinate frame of reference, and finally integrating range images into a nonredundant model. Efficiencies could be achieved by automating or semiautomating this process. While challenges remain, there are adequate solutions to semiautomate the scan-register-integrate tasks. On the other hand, view planning remains an open problem---that is, the task of finding a suitably small set of sensor poses and configurations for specified reconstruction or inspection goals. This paper surveys and compares view planning techniques for automated 3D object reconstruction and inspection by means of active, triangulation-based range sensors.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.290 · 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