MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160823495 · doi:10.1111/cgf.12554

Template Assembly for Detailed Urban Reconstruction

2015· article· en· W2160823495 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

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemplateComputer sciencePoint cloudTexture synthesisPreprocessorConsistency (knowledge bases)Artificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Computer visionComputer graphics (images)Structure from motionTemplate matchingMatching (statistics)Point (geometry)Image (mathematics)Image textureMotion (physics)Image processingGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a new framework to reconstruct building details by automatically assembling 3D templates on coarse textured building models. In a preprocessing step, we generate an initial coarse model to approximate a point cloud computed using Structure from Motion and Multi View Stereo, and we model a set of 3D templates of facade details. Next, we optimize the initial coarse model to enforce consistency between geometry and appearance (texture images). Then, building details are reconstructed by assembling templates on the textured faces of the coarse model. The 3D templates are automatically chosen and located by our optimization‐based template assembly algorithm that balances image matching and structural regularity. In the results, we demonstrate how our framework can enrich the details of coarse models using various data sets.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.188 · 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