MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131206886 · doi:10.1123/jab.26.1.104

Accuracy of 3-D Reconstruction with Occlusions

2010· article· en· W2131206886 on OpenAlexaff
Mickaël Begon, Patrick Lacouture

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biomechanics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionInterpolation (computer graphics)Filter (signal processing)KinematicsMathematicsComputer scienceIterative reconstructionMotion (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A marker has to be seen by at least two cameras for its three-dimensional (3-D) reconstruction, and the accuracy can be improved with more cameras. However, a change in the set of cameras used in the reconstruction can alter the kinematics. The purpose of this study was to quantify the harmful effect of occlusions on two-dimensional (2-D) images and to make recommendations about the signal processing. A reference kinematics data set was collected for a three degree-of-freedom linkage with three cameras of a commercial motion analysis system without any occlusion on the 2-D images. In the 2-D images, some occlusions were artificially created based on trials of real cyclic motions. An interpolation of 2-D trajectories before the 3-D reconstruction and two filters (Savitsky-Golay and Butterworth filters) after reconstruction were successively applied to minimize the effect of the 2-D occlusions. The filter parameters were optimized by minimizing the root mean square error between the reference and the filtered data. The optimal parameters of the filters were marker dependent, whereas no filter was necessary after a 2-D interpolation. As the occlusions cause systematic error in the 3-D reconstruction, the interpolation of the 2-D trajectories is more appropriate than filtering the 3-D trajectories.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied BiomechanicsSame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207