MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135369192 · doi:10.1109/gmap.2004.1290038

Feature based retargeting of parameterized geometry

2004· article· en· W2135369192 on OpenAlexaff
Karan Singh, Hans Køhling Pedersen, V. Krishnamurthy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowComputer scienceRetargetingGridFeature (linguistics)Mesh generationParameterized complexityParametric statisticsReuseSurface (topology)Parametric surfaceTemplateSolid modelingGeometryAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringFinite element methodDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an approach for mapping layouts of parametric surface patches to a target 3D geometry. Its main contribution is to facilitate the feature based placement of an arbitrary network of patches, assuring that both boundaries and parametric flow conform to features of the target shape. The technique, referred to as dynamic templates, describes the algorithms and interface of a reverse engineering system, Paraform, that integrates techniques relying on a judicious choice of automation and user guided tools. Our approach is based on a use of constrained optimization for the fairing of structured surface grids, where grid points can be unconstrained in 3D or constrained to lie within the parameter space of curves, surfaces, or other geometry. We present our results as case studies in large industrial workflow problems, involving the reuse of geometric data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207