MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158572265 · doi:10.1109/haptic.2002.998959

Haptic subdivision: an approach to defining level-of-detail in haptic rendering

2003· article· en· W2158572265 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)SubdivisionObject (grammar)SimulationReactionDeformation (meteorology)Computer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soft objects are often desired in applications such as virtual surgery training. Soft object simulations are computationally intensive because object deformation involves numerically solving a large number of differential equations. However, realistic force feedback requires deformation be computed fast and graphic feedback requires deformation be highly detailed. In this paper, we propose an approach that balances these requirements by subdividing the area of interest on a relatively coarse mesh model. Thus we keep the number of nodes of the model under control so that the simulation can be run at a sufficiently high rate for force feedback. The model we use is based on a mass-spring model. When a portion of the surface is subdivided, new values of mass and spring constants are determined such that computed force feedback offers the user the same reaction force as before subdivision.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207