MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099163277 · doi:10.1109/smi.2010.23

Shape Defined Panoramas

2010· article· en· W2099163277 on OpenAlexafffund
John Brosz, Faramarz Samavati

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPanoramaRendering (computer graphics)Computer graphics (images)Computer scienceComputer visionParameterized complexityArtificial intelligenceProjection (relational algebra)Image-based modeling and renderingGraphical projectionPolygon meshResamplingIsosurfaceGeometryVisualizationAlgorithmMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Panoramic projections are often defined by the geometric surfaces used to derive the projections' equations (e.g., spherical and cylindrical panoramas). The parameterization of these surfaces greatly affects the resulting projection equations and image properties. Problematically, unusual parameterization can reproduce panoramas associated with other shapes. In this paper, we ensure an explicit link between surface shape and projection behavior by suggesting use of projection surfaces parameterized by arc-length, binding rendering behavior to surface modeling. This allows us to create new panorama variations beyond the conventional for creating panoramas of CG environments as well as for resampling panoramas created from cameras. Further we describe an interface for composing these panoramas and show how this technique lends itself to controlling distortion and composition of panoramic projections. Additionally we provide details on rendering these projections.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207