MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153968339 · doi:10.1145/2077341.2077342

Learning hatching for pen-and-ink illustration of surfaces

2012· article· en· W2153968339 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatchingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCluster analysisLine drawingsObject (grammar)Computer visionPixelNon-photorealistic renderingLine (geometry)Orientation (vector space)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer graphics (images)MathematicsArtVisual artsEngineering drawingGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an algorithm for learning hatching styles from line drawings. An artist draws a single hatching illustration of a 3D object. Her strokes are analyzed to extract the following per-pixel properties: hatching level (hatching, cross-hatching, or no strokes), stroke orientation, spacing, intensity, length, and thickness. A mapping is learned from input geometric, contextual, and shading features of the 3D object to these hatching properties, using classification, regression, and clustering techniques. Then, a new illustration can be generated in the artist's style, as follows. First, given a new view of a 3D object, the learned mapping is applied to synthesize target stroke properties for each pixel. A new illustration is then generated by synthesizing hatching strokes according to the target properties.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.264 · 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