MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162000099 · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2009.5204317

Geometric video projector auto-calibration

2009· article· en· W2162000099 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

Venue2009 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProjectorComputer visionComputer scienceCalibrationCamera resectioningArtificial intelligenceMetric (unit)Camera auto-calibrationProjection (relational algebra)Computer graphics (images)PlanarMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we address the problem of geometric calibration of video projectors. Like in most previous methods we also use a camera that observes the projection on a planar surface. Contrary to those previous methods, we neither require the camera to be calibrated nor the presence of a calibration grid or other metric information about the scene. We thus speak of geometric auto-calibration of projectors (GAP). The fact that camera calibration is not needed increases the usability of the method and at the same time eliminates one potential source of inaccuracy, since errors in the camera calibration would otherwise inevitably propagate through to the projector calibration. Our method enjoys a good stability and gives good results when compared against existing methods as depicted by our experiments.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.226 · 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