MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159101151 · doi:10.1109/3dim.2007.58

Three-dimensional reconstruction using the perpendicularity constraint

2007· article· en· W2159101151 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

VenueProceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Euclidean distanceEuclidean geometryCalibrationComputer scienceNonlinear systemArtificial intelligence3D reconstructionAlgorithmMathematical optimizationGoodness of fitMathematicsComputer visionStatisticsMachine learningGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new method for calculating the Euclidean 3D structure of a scene using only two uncalibrated images and the basic Euclidean constraint resulting from the 3D perpendicularity. Instead of using the nonlinear self-calibration methods to estimate the intrinsic parameters, a linear search for the best values of these parameters is carried out. The criteria measuring the goodness of the intrinsic parameters' values is based on the Euclidean quality of the calculated 3D reconstruction using the 3D perpendicularity constraint. Experimental results on both simulated and real data have validated our method and have shown that the proposed method could be a better alternative to calibration-based reconstruction.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · 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