MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sketching and Composing Widgets for 3D Manipulation

2008· article· en· W2131598794 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceSketchHuman–computer interactionTransformation (genetics)Object (grammar)Context (archaeology)Interface (matter)VocabularyUser interfaceComputer graphics (images)Programming languageArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present an interface for 3D object manipulation in which standard transformation tools are replaced with transient 3D widgets invoked by sketching context‐dependent strokes. The widgets are automatically aligned to axes and planes determined by the user's stroke. Sketched pivot‐points further expand the interaction vocabulary. Using gestural commands, these basic elements can be assembled into dynamic, user‐constructed 3D transformation systems. We supplement precise widget interaction with techniques for coarse object positioning and snapping. Our approach, which is implemented within a broader sketch‐based modeling system, also integrates an underlying “widget history” to enable the fluid transfer of widgets between objects. An evaluation indicates that users familiar with 3D manipulation concepts can be taught how to efficiently use our system in under an hour.

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.

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 score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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