MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506064773 · doi:10.5555/2981324.2981326

Painted stained glass

2016· article· en· W2506064773 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

VenueNon-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStained glassTileRendering (computer graphics)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionStylized factImage (mathematics)Cluster analysisFilling-inImage stitchingComputer graphics (images)Pattern recognition (psychology)Materials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new region-based method for stained glass rendering of an input photograph. We achieve more regular region sizes than previous methods by using simple linear iterative clustering, or SLIC, to obtain tile boundaries. The SLIC regions respect image edges but provide an oversegmentation suitable for stained glass. We distinguish between important boundaries that match image edges, and unimportant boundaries that do not; we then resegment regions with unimportant boundaries to create more regular regions. We assign colors to stained glass tiles; lastly, we apply a painting layer to the simplified image, restoring fine details that cannot be conveyed by the tile shapes alone. This last step is analogous to the overpainting done in real-world stained glass. The outcome is a stylized image that offers a better representation of the original image content than has been available from earlier stained glass filters, while still conveying the sense of a stained glass image.

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 score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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