MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174855376 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2002.1023808

Detecting binocular half-occlusions: empirical comparisons of five approaches

2002· article· en· W2174855376 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Binocular disparityBinocular visionImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Binocular half-occlusion points are those that are visible in one of the two views provided by a binocular imaging system. Due to their importance in binocular matching as well as, subsequent interpretation tasks, a number of approaches have been developed for dealing with such points. In the current paper, we consider five methods that explicitly detect half-occlusions and report on a more uniform comparison than has previously been performed. Taking a disparity image and its associated match goodness image as input, we generate images that show the half-occluded points in the underlying scene. We quantitatively and qualitatively compare these methods under a variety of conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.238 · 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