S<scp>mart</scp>C<scp>anvas</scp>: Context‐inferred Interpretation of Sketches for Preparatory Design Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In early or preparatory design stages, an architect or designer sketches out rough ideas, not only about the object or structure being considered, but its relation to its spatial context. This is an iterative process, where the sketches are not only the primary means for testing and refining ideas, but also for communicating among a design team and to clients. Hence, sketching is the preferred media for artists and designers during the early stages of design, albeit with a major drawback: sketches are 2D and effects such as view perturbations or object movement are not supported, thereby inhibiting the design process. We present an interactive system that allows for the creation of a 3D abstraction of a designed space, built primarily by sketching in 2D within the context of an anchoring design or photograph. The system is progressive in the sense that the interpretations are refined as the user continues sketching. As a key technical enabler, we reformulate the sketch interpretation process as a selection optimization from a set of context‐generated canvas planes in order to retrieve a regular arrangement of planes. We demonstrate our system (available at http:/geometry.cs.ucl.ac.uk/projects/2016/smartcanvas/ ) with a wide range of sketches and design studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".