MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163213698 · doi:10.1145/1360612.1360686

Fluorescent immersion range scanning

2008· article· en· W2163213698 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

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsOpticsComputer visionStructured lightComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLaser scanningBidirectional reflectance distribution functionSurface (topology)Materials scienceLaserPhysicsGeometryMathematicsReflectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality of a 3D range scan should not depend on the surface properties of the object. Most active range scanning techniques, however, assume a diffuse reflector to allow for a robust detection of incident light patterns. In our approach we embed the object into a fluorescent liquid. By analyzing the light rays that become visible due to fluorescence rather than analyzing their reflections off the surface, we can detect the intersection points between the projected laser sheet and the object surface for a wide range of different materials. For transparent objects we can even directly depict a slice through the object in just one image by matching its refractive index to the one of the embedding liquid. This enables a direct sampling of the object geometry without the need for computational reconstruction. This way, a high-resolution 3D volume can be assembled simply by sweeping a laser plane through the object. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our light sheet range scanning approach on a set of objects manufactured from a variety of materials and material mixes, including dark, translucent and transparent objects.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.230 · 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