MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100819154 · doi:10.1109/cgi.1997.601259

An algorithm for polygon subdivision based on vertex normals

2002· article· en· W2100819154 on OpenAlexaff
C.W.A.M. van Overveld, Brian Wyvill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)Rendering (computer graphics)Polygon meshPoint in polygonComputer scienceRectilinear polygonVertex (graph theory)Triangle meshPolygon coveringSurface triangulationSubdivision surfaceMathematicsAlgorithmMonotone polygonComputer graphics (images)Simple polygonCombinatoricsGeometryDelaunay triangulationConstrained Delaunay triangulationGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to achieve the impression of a smooth surface while rendering a polygon mesh, normal vector vectors may be provided in the vertices of the mesh that are the average of the surface normals of the adjacent polygons. Interpolation of these normal vectors while rendering of the polygons in the mesh, and using the interpolated normal vectors in the shading computations, yields a smoothly varying intensity distribution. There is an inherent mismatch, however, between the smoothness of the shading thus achieved and the non-smoothness of the geometry which is particularly visible at silhouettes, showing as straight edges and non-smooth edge junctions at the silhouette vertices. A remedy for these artefacts is suggested. The remedy consists of subdividing each input polygon into a mesh of polygons prior to rendering. The shape of this resulting polygon mesh is controlled by the normal vectors that are provided in the vertices of the original polygon, unlike other subdivision schemes that make use of adjacent polygons. With the method, polygons equipped with vertex normal vectors can therefore be processed without further knowledge of neighbour polygons. This makes the method well-suited in the context of graphics libraries, such as OpenGl, that treat polygons typically on a per-polygon basis. So the proposed computation of the mesh which replaces the original polygon can be viewed as a filter which may operate as a process in front of a traditional polygon rendering pipeline.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207