MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158202967 · doi:10.1145/1639601.1639618

Intelligent toolkit for procedural animation of human behaviors

2009· article· en· W2158202967 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Slinger, S. Ali Etemad, Ali Arya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationComputer scienceMotion captureCharacter animationMotion (physics)Skeletal animationReuseComputer animationStudioComputer facial animationComputer graphics (images)MultimediaSession (web analytics)Quality (philosophy)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of optical motion capture systems to produce high quality humanoid motion sequences has recently become increasingly popular in many areas such as high-end gaming, cinema movie and animation production, and for educational purposes. Motion capture studios are expensive to employ or are unavailable to many people and locales. For this reason, the reuse of existing motion capture data and the resulting high-quality animation is an important area of research. Strict motion capture data restricts users to pre-recorded movement that does not allow the addition of dynamic behaviors required in advanced games and interactive environment. Our procedural animation method offers animators high quality animations produced from an optical motion capture session, without incurring the cost of running their own sessions. This method utilizes a database of common animations sequences, derived from several motion capture sessions, which animators can manipulate and apply to their own existing characters through the use of our procedural animation toolkit. The basic animation types include walk, run, and jump sequences that can be applied with personality variations that correspond to a character's gender, age, and energy levels.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207