MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171248187 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2007.366

Scale-Space Feature Detection for Close Range Camera Calibration

2007· article· en· W2171248187 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Kinsner, David W. Capson, Allan D. Spence

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFocus (optics)CalibrationScale spaceCamera resectioningFeature (linguistics)Feature extractionScale (ratio)Object detectionFeature detection (computer vision)Field (mathematics)Camera auto-calibrationImage (mathematics)Image processingPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsGeographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imaging systems for computer vision play an important role in today's world, with applications ranging from automated assembly and tolerance analysis, to spacecraft guidance and control. The accuracy of many of these systems relies heavily upon calibration of the vision system, and although many algorithms and techniques exist for camera calibration, most are designed for large-scene applications where multiple objects may be imaged and considered in focus simultaneously. Close-range camera systems, on the other hand, typically have a relatively narrow depth of field in which an object appears focussed. World features outside this depth of field are blurred, and so a method is desired to reliably extract information from the close-range scene even when satisfactory focus is not achieved throughout an entire image. This paper presents initial results from implementation of a discrete scale-space edge detection method, applied to feature extraction from a calibration target.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207