MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613008810 · doi:10.5121/ijcga.2017.7201

The Plani Plant Animation Framework

2017· article· en· W2613008810 on OpenAlexaff
Tina L. M. Derzaph, Howard J. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Graphics & Animation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtAnimationComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The PLant ANImation (PLANI) framework allows a designer's ideas and decisions about virtual plants to be guided through a structured process that results in an animation of a plant.The process proceeds by selecting relevant objects with properties from four logically grouped domains to simplify implementation.The resulting grouped objects are used as the baseline parameters for the coding process to create the virtual plant.PLANI's construction is based on more than a thousand years of biological research, fifty years of functional-structural plant modelling, and ten years of ontology development, instantiated into an animation environment.PLANI ensures that, when designing virtual plants, a selection of objects derived from an appropriate ontology are considered, and that this selection depends on the purpose of the animation, e.g., whether it is for gaming animation, biological simulation, or film animation.The use of PLANI provides the developer with a framework that is flexible, covers a wide variety of structural, functional, and animation objects for plants, and provides classification of current computer algorithms by their applications to designing virtual plants.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.016

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computer Graphics & AnimationSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207