MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113635357 · doi:10.1109/tip.2003.822592

High-Accuracy 3-D Modeling of Cultural Heritage: The Digitizing of Donatello's “Maddalena”

2004· article· en· W2113635357 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriele Guidi, J.‐A. Beraldin, Carlo Atzeni

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsCultural heritagePhotogrammetryComputer scienceComputer visionIterative closest pointArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)Calibration3D modelingDigital elevation modelProcess (computing)Focus (optics)Point cloudRemote sensingArchaeologyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional digital modeling of Heritage works of art through optical scanners, has been demonstrated in recent years with results of exceptional interest. However, the routine application of three-dimensional (3-D) modeling to Heritage conservation still requires the systematic investigation of a number of technical problems. In this paper, the acquisition process of the 3-D digital model of the Maddalena by Donatello, a wooden statue representing one of the major masterpieces of the Italian Renaissance which was swept away by the Florence flood of 1966 and successively restored, is described. The paper reports all the steps of the acquisition procedure, from the project planning to the solution of the various problems due to range camera calibration and to material non optically cooperative. Since the scientific focus is centered on the 3-D model overall dimensional accuracy, a methodology for its quality control is described. Such control has demonstrated how, in some situations, the ICP-based alignment can lead to incorrect results. To circumvent this difficulty we propose an alignment technique based on the fusion of ICP with close-range digital photogrammetry and a non-invasive procedure in order to generate a final accurate model. In the end detailed results are presented, demonstrating the improvement of the final model, and how the proposed sensor fusion ensure a pre-specified level of accuracy.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations139
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207