MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186173056 · doi:10.82308/24542

Shadow removal from multi-projector displays via three-dimensional modeling and object tracking

2008· dissertation· en· W2186173056 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsProjectorComputer visionArtificial intelligenceShadow (psychology)Computer scienceTracking (education)Computer graphics (images)Object (grammar)Video trackingCalibrationAugmented realityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lorsqu'une personne se tient entre un projecteur et une surface d'affichage une ombre apparaît. Nous démontrons une méthode pour éliminer les ombres en utilisant la poursuite d'objets par caméras et un modèle tridimensionnel d'une pièce, qui inclut les caméras, les projecteurs et les surfaces plates. Pour la poursuite de personnes, quoique nous utilisons des caméras, d'autres méthodes fonctionneraient. Pour obtenir le modèle, nous avons adapté et utilisons des méthodes de calibration géométrique existantes. Avec l'information sur la poursuite et le modèle, notre algorithme trouve dans l'image d'un projecteur la région qui est occluse par une personne. Un autre projecteur peut alors automatiquement remplir la région avec les mêmes intensités et couleurs que celles du projecteur occlus. Nous avons trouvé que la calibration et la poursuite étaient exactes et que le système était capable d'éliminer correctement et efficacement les ombres, procurant une expérience visuelle plus attrayante aux utilisateurs de l'affichage à projecteurs multiples.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207