MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293183540 · doi:10.1145/2866570

Intrinsic Girth Function for Shape Processing

2016· article· en· W2293183540 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shiqing Xin, Wenping Wang, Shuangmin Chen, Jieyu Zhao, Zhenyu Shu

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMcGill University
KeywordsGeodesicSurface (topology)Invariant (physics)Computer graphicsMathematicsIsometry (Riemannian geometry)Shape analysis (program analysis)Computer scienceFunction (biology)Feature (linguistics)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceTopology (electrical circuits)GeometryCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shape description and feature detection are fundamental problems in computer graphics and geometric modeling. Among many existing techniques, those based on geodesic distance have proven effective in providing intrinsic and discriminative shape descriptors. In this article we introduce a new intrinsic function for a three-dimensional (3D) shape and use it for shape description and geometric feature detection. Specifically, we introduce the intrinsic girth function (IGF) defined on a 2D closed surface. For a point p on the surface, the value of the IGF at p is the length of the shortest nonzero geodesic path starting and ending at p . The IGF is invariant under isometry, insensitive to mesh tessellations, and robust to surface noise. We propose a fast method for computing the IGF and discuss its applications to shape retrieval and detecting tips, tubes, and plates that are constituent parts of 3D objects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207