MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131970932

SHREC 15 Track Non rigid 3D Shape Retrieval

2010· article· en· W2131970932 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon meshComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Object (grammar)Matching (statistics)Track (disk drive)Computer visionCONTESTArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalMathematicsComputer graphics (images)Geology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-rigid shape matching is one of the most challenging fields in content-based 3D object retrieval. The aim of the SHREC 2010 - Shape Retrieval Contest of Non-rigid 3D Models is to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different methods run on a non-rigid 3D shape benchmark consisting of 200 watertight triangular meshes. Three groups with six methods have participated in this track and the retrieval performance was evaluated using six commonly-used metrics.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.012

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations76
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207