MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2544804007 · doi:10.1111/cgf.13008

Trip Synopsis: 60km in 60sec

2016· article· en· W2544804007 on OpenAlexaff
Hui Huang, Dani Lischinski, Zhidan Hao, Minglun Gong, Marc Christie, Daniel Cohen‐Or

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionTrajectoryArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Focus (optics)Metric (unit)Computer graphics (images)TerrainPosition (finance)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Computerized route planning tools are widely used today by travelers all around the globe, while 3D terrain and urban models are becoming increasingly elaborate and abundant. This makes it feasible to generate a virtual 3D flyby along a planned route. Such a flyby may be useful, either as a preview of the trip, or as an after‐the‐fact visual summary. However, a naively generated preview is likely to contain many boring portions, while skipping too quickly over areas worthy of attention. In this paper, we introduce 3D trip synopsis: a continuous visual summary of a trip that attempts to maximize the total amount of visual interest seen by the camera. The main challenge is to generate a synopsis of a prescribed short duration, while ensuring a visually smooth camera motion. Using an application‐specific visual interest metric, we measure the visual interest at a set of viewpoints along an initial camera path, and maximize the amount of visual interest seen in the synopsis by varying the speed along the route. A new camera path is then computed using optimization to simultaneously satisfy requirements, such as smoothness, focus and distance to the route. The process is repeated until convergence. The main technical contribution of this work is a new camera control method, which iteratively adjusts the camera trajectory and determines all of the camera trajectory parameters, including the camera position, altitude, heading, and tilt. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of our trip synopses, compared to a number of alternatives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207