MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110991707 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2010.234

Visual Comparability of 3D Regular Sampling and Reconstruction

2010· article· en· W2110991707 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparabilityArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceLattice (music)Cartesian coordinate systemMetric (unit)VisualizationTetrahedronComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsGeometryPhysicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Body-Centered Cubic (BCC) and Face-Centered Cubic (FCC) lattices have been analytically shown to be more efficient sampling lattices than the traditional Cartesian Cubic (CC) lattice, but there has been no estimate of their visual comparability. Two perceptual studies (each with N = 12 participants) compared the visual quality of images rendered from BCC and FCC lattices to images rendered from the CC lattice. Images were generated from two signals: the commonly used Marschner-Lobb synthetic function and a computed tomography scan of a fish tail. Observers found that BCC and FCC could produce images of comparable visual quality to CC, using 30-35 percent fewer samples. For the images used in our studies, the L(2) error metric shows high correlation with the judgement of human observers. Using the L(2) metric as a proxy, the results of the experiments appear to extend across a wide range of images and parameter choices.

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 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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.286 · 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