MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165597360 · doi:10.1109/tim.2006.876410

Calibration of an Integrated Robotic Multimodal Range Scanner

2006· article· en· W2165597360 on OpenAlexaff
Yingjie Yang, Phillip Curtis, Pierre Payeur

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceSensor fusionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionScannerReal-time computingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collecting dense range measurements in uncontrolled environments is a challenging problem, as the quality of the measurements is highly dependent on the lighting conditions and the texture of the target surfaces. This dependence affects the registration and data-fusion processes and, consequently, degrades the accuracy of the surface or occupancy models that are computed from the range measurements. Typical approaches to address this issue have concentrated on improving a specific type of range sensor. On the other hand, the overall quality of the sensing can also be enhanced through the development of a mechanism that combines the various range-sensing technologies to form a multimodal range sensor. The resulting problem of the merging datasets can then be solved in two ways: system calibration of the multimodal sensor or data fitting of all the datasets into a single model, of which the latter is more widely implemented. The lack of multimodal-system calibration approaches is due to their complicated and lengthy nature, where individual calibration procedures must be applied to each subsystem and then applied between the subsystems of the multimodal range sensor. This paper proposes a technique to alleviate the problems encountered in a multimodal-system calibration. Straightforward and generic guidelines for the calibration are defined and applied to an in-house integrated multimodal system built from a laser-range-finder system, two structured-lighting systems, and a stereovision system. The system's intracalibration and intercalibration processes are detailed. Reconstructed renderings of the datasets collected with the calibrated multimodal range sensor, without the use of data fitting, are also presented. From these results, the potential benefits of multimodal calibration over the computationally intensive data-fitting methods and the advantages of merging the subsystem's strengths to complement other subsystem's weaknesses are put in evidence

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207