MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133105254 · doi:10.1109/icpr.1990.118153

Extraction of line drawing features for object recognition

2002· article· en· W2133105254 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Bergevin, Martin D. Levine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Invariant (physics)Computer scienceFeature extractionSegmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Computer vision3D single-object recognitionLine drawingsLine (geometry)Field (mathematics)Natural language processingMathematicsEngineering drawingPure mathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors describe the geometrical criteria which define viewpoint-invariant features to be extracted from 2-D line drawings of 3-D objects. They also discuss the extraction of these features, which forms the initial stage of a generic object recognition system, the Primal Access Recognition of Visual Objects (PARVO) system. In this system, part-based qualitative descriptions are built and matched to coarse 3-D object models for recognition. The segmentation and labeling of the constituent parts of an object rely on the 3-D properties inferred from the presence of its 2-D features. The original motivation for PARVO its recognition by components, a theory of human image understanding from the field of psychology. Definitions of the geometrical criteria defining the viewpoint-invariant features are introduced. Examples of results obtained by applying these criteria to a typical line drawing are shown.>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207