Geodesic matching of triangulated surfaces
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognition of images and shapes has long been the central theme of computer vision. Its importance is increasing rapidly in the field of computer graphics and multimedia communication because it is difficult to process information efficiently without its recognition. In this paper, we propose a new approach for object matching based on a global geodesic measure. The key idea behind our methodology is to represent an object by a probabilistic shape descriptor that measures the global geodesic distance between two arbitrary points on the surface of an object. In contrast to the Euclidean distance which is more suitable for linear spaces, the geodesic distance has the advantage to be able to capture the intrinsic geometric structure of the data. The matching task therefore becomes a one-dimensional comparison problem between probability distributions which is clearly much simpler than comparing three-dimensional structures. Object matching can then be carried out by an information-theoretic dissimilarity measure calculations between geodesic shape distributions, and is additionally computationally efficient and inexpensive.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it