Legible compact calligrams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A calligram is an arrangement of words or letters that creates a visual image, and a compact calligram fits one word into a 2D shape. We introduce a fully automatic method for the generation of legible compact calligrams which provides a balance between conveying the input shape, legibility, and aesthetics. Our method has three key elements: a path generation step which computes a global layout path suitable for embedding the input word; an alignment step to place the letters so as to achieve feature alignment between letter and shape protrusions while maintaining word legibility; and a final deformation step which deforms the letters to fit the shape while balancing fit against letter legibility. As letter legibility is critical to the quality of compact calligrams, we conduct a large-scale crowd-sourced study on the impact of different letter deformations on legibility and use the results to train a letter legibility measure which guides the letter deformation. We show automatically generated calligrams on an extensive set of word-image combinations. The legibility and overall quality of the calligrams are evaluated and compared, via user studies, to those produced by human creators, including a professional artist, and existing works.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".