MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122687992 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2005.19

A practical approach to spectral volume rendering

2005· article· en· W2122687992 on OpenAlexaff
S. Bergner, Torsten Möller, Melanie Tory, Mark S. Drew

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVolume renderingComputer graphics (images)Rendering (computer graphics)Data visualizationVisualizationVolume (thermodynamics)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To make a spectral representation of color practicable for volume rendering, a new low-dimensional subspace method is used to act as the carrier of spectral information. With that model, spectral light material interaction can be integrated into existing volume rendering methods at almost no penalty. In addition, slow rendering methods can profit from the new technique of postillumination-generating spectral images in real-time for arbitrary light spectra under a fixed viewpoint. Thus, the capability of spectral rendering to create distinct impressions of a scene under different lighting conditions is established as a method of real-time interaction. Although we use an achromatic opacity in our rendering, we show how spectral rendering permits different data set features to be emphasized or hidden as long as they have not been entirely obscured. The use of postillumination is an order of magnitude faster than changing the transfer function and repeating the projection step. To put the user in control of the spectral visualization, we devise a new widget, a "light-dial," for interactively changing the illumination and include a usability study of this new light space exploration tool. Applied to spectral transfer functions, different lights bring out or hide specific qualities of the data. In conjunction with postillumination, this provides a new means for preparing data for visualization and forms a new degree of freedom for guided exploration of volumetric data sets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer GraphicsSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207