MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112555586 · doi:10.1111/cgf.12332

Flower reconstruction from a single photo

2014· article· en· W2112555586 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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersScience and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPetalComputer scienceProjection (relational algebra)Computer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionSurface (topology)AlgorithmMathematicsGeometryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a semi‐automatic method for reconstructing flower models from a single photograph. Such reconstruction is challenging since the 3D structure of a flower can appear ambiguous in projection. However, the flower head typically consists of petals embedded in 3D space that share similar shapes and form certain level of regular structure. Our technique employs these assumptions by first fitting a cone and subsequently a surface of revolution to the flower structure and then computing individual petal shapes from their projection in the photo. Flowers with multiple layers of petals are handled through processing different layers separately. Occlusions are dealt with both within and between petal layers. We show that our method allows users to quickly generate a variety of realistic 3D flowers from photographs and to animate an image using the underlying models reconstructed from our method.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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