MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129094835 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2006.354

Canonical Skeletons for Shape Matching

2006· article· en· W2129094835 on OpenAlexaff
Matthijs van Eede, Diego Macrini, Alexandru Telea, Cristian Sminchisescu, Sara Dickinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopological skeletonSkeleton (computer programming)Shape analysis (program analysis)Matching (statistics)Computer scienceShape optimizationMinor (academic)MathematicsActive shape modelBoundary (topology)Deformation (meteorology)Artificial intelligenceGeometryFinite element methodSegmentationMathematical analysisStructural engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skeletal representations of 2-D shape, including shock graphs, have become increasingly popular for shape matching and object recognition. However, it is well known that skeletal structure can be unstable under minor boundary deformation, part articulation, and minor shape deformation (due to, for example, small changes in viewpoint). As a result, two very similar shapes may yield two significantly different skeletal representations which, in turn, will induce a large matching distance. Such instability occurs both at external branches as well as internal branches of the skeleton. We present a framework for the structural simplification of a shape’s skeleton which balances, in an optimization framework, the desire to reduce a skeleton’s complexity by minimizing the number of branches, with the desire to maximize the skeleton’s ability to accurately reconstruct the original shape. This optimization yields a canonical skeleton whose increased stability yields significantly improved recognition performance.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207