MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114215768 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2000.905626

3D triangular mesh matching through a sequence of registered 2D and 3D images

2002· article· en· W2114215768 on OpenAlexafffund
Denis Dion, Denis Laurendeau, Louis Borgeat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)Computer graphicsCluster analysisVirtual realityComputer visionAugmented realityComputer graphics (images)Matching (statistics)Sequence (biology)Image-based modeling and rendering3D modelingArtificial intelligenceTriangle mesh3d modelAbstractionSolid modelingGraphicsPolygon mesh

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

VR systems were traditionally used for tasks relying on high-quality graphics rendering where virtual environments were entirely made of user-defined objects. We are foreseeing that serious breakthroughs will emerge, where 'augmented reality' environments will be created in a more dynamic fashion, using 2D and 3D data from computer vision sensors. Thus, virtual environments will not be made exclusively of user-defined objects, but also from real data. This data, after proper modeling to provide some behaviour and abstraction levels, will then be used to feed high-performance imaging systems. This paper deals with: 1) local surface modeling of the 3D data visible from each 2D viewpoint using a modified marching cubes algorithm; and 2) region matching of the local models (from neighboring views in the sequence) using color region clustering information from the 2D snapshots. Local models and the region matching information are used to build complete global models from a sequence of images.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207