MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104217614 · doi:10.1111/1467-8659.t01-1-00643

Two‐dimensional Potential Fields for Advanced Implicit Modeling Operators

2003· article· en· W2104217614 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 · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControllabilityComputer scienceDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Object (grammar)Point (geometry)SimplicityTheoretical computer scienceSurface (topology)Space (punctuation)AlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceApplied mathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Current methods for building models using implicit volume techniques present problems defining accurate and controllable blend shapes between implicit primitives. We present new methods to extend the freedom and controllability of implicit volume modeling. The main idea is to use a free‐form curve to define the profile of the blend region between implicit primitives. The use of a free‐form implicit curve, controlled point‐by‐point in the Euclidean user space, allows us to group boolean composition operators with sharp transitions or smooth free‐form transitions in a single modeling metaphor. This idea is generalized for the creation, sculpting and manipulation of volume objects, while providing the user with simplicity, controllability and freedom in implicit modeling. ACM CSS: I.3.5 Computational Gemoetry and Object Modeling— Curve, surface, solid, and object representations

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.269 · 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