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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Classical approaches to shape correspondence base their computation purely on the properties, in particular geometric similarity, of the shapes in question. Their performance still falls far short of that of humans in challenging cases where corresponding shape parts may differ significantly in geometry or even topology. We stipulate that in these cases, shape correspondence by humans involves recognition of the shape parts where prior knowledge on the parts would play a more dominant role than geometric similarity. We introduce an approach to part correspondence which incorporates prior knowledge imparted by a training set of pre‐segmented, labeled models and combines the knowledge with content‐driven analysis based on geometric similarity between the matched shapes. First, the prior knowledge is learned from the training set in the form of per‐label classifiers. Next, given two query shapes to be matched, we apply the classifiers to assign a probabilistic label to each shape face. Finally, by means of a joint labeling scheme, the probabilistic labels are used synergistically with pairwise assignments derived from geometric similarity to provide the resulting part correspondence. We show that the incorporation of knowledge is especially effective in dealing with shapes exhibiting large intra‐class variations. We also show that combining knowledge and content analyses outperforms approaches guided by either attribute alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it