MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144129085 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2006.127

Composite Rectilinear Deformation for Stretch and Squish Navigation

2006· article· en· W2144129085 on OpenAlexaff
James Slack, Tamara Munzner

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeformation (meteorology)Computer scienceComposite numberComputer graphics (images)Engineering drawingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComposite materialMaterials scienceEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the first scalable algorithm that supports the composition of successive rectilinear deformations. Earlier systems that provided stretch and squish navigation could only handle small datasets. More recent work featuring rubber sheet navigation for large datasets has focused on rendering and on application-specific issues. However, no algorithm has yet been presented for carrying out such navigation methods; our paper addresses this problem. For maximum flexibility with large datasets, a stretch and squish navigation algorithm should allow for millions of potentially deformable regions. However, typical usage only changes the extents of a small subset k of these n regions at a time. The challenge is to avoid computations that are linear in n, because a single deformation can affect the absolute screen-space location of every deformable region. We provide an O(klogn) algorithm that supports any application that can lay out a dataset on a generic grid, and show an implementation that allows navigation of trees and gene sequences with millions of items in sub-millisecond time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer GraphicsSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207