MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106406541 · doi:10.1109/icsmc.1995.537805

Spatial occupancy recovery from a multiple-view range imaging system for path planning applications

2002· article· en· W2106406541 on OpenAlexaff
Derek Jung, Kamal Gupta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOctreeComputer scienceComputer visionWorkspaceArtificial intelligenceVoxelMotion planningOccupancy grid mappingRange (aeronautics)OccupancyRepresentation (politics)Path (computing)Computer graphics (images)RobotMobile robotEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We strive to obtain full spatial occupancy descriptions of the workspace from multiple range images acquired from different points of view. Such representations are highly suitable in path-planning applications, for charting a collision-free course through a workspace. We propose an algorithm, called peeling, which allows us to fuse range images into a voxel array and obtain a spatial occupancy model for use by a path planner. We also take a look at another method of range image fusion, called direct mapping, which combines the images into a voxel array but does not provide a proper spatial occupancy model. We present an overview of previous work in range image fusion and look at octrees and octree generation; our final model is an octree representation, for more efficient memory use. We are building a prototype system consisting of a technical Arts 100 AT laser range scanner mounted on a PUMA 560 robot arm, both controlled from an SGI workstation. Spatial occupancy models generated by this system are fed to an off-line path-planner.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207