MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766572115 · doi:10.1145/3126594.3126662

DreamSketch

2017· article· en· W2766572115 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative DesignComputer scienceGenerative grammarHuman–computer interactionContext (archaeology)Interaction designUser interfaceExpressive powerEngineering drawingArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present DreamSketch, a novel 3D design interface that combines the free-form and expressive qualities of sketching with the computational power of generative design algorithms. In DreamSketch, a user coarsely defines the problem by sketching the design context. Then, a generative design algorithm produces multiple solutions that are augmented as 3D objects in the sketched context. The user can interact with the scene to navigate through the generated solutions. The combination of sketching and generative algorithms enables designers to explore multiple ideas and make better informed design decisions during the early stages of design. Design study sessions with designers and mechanical engineers demonstrate the expressive nature and creative possibilities of DreamSketch.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Quick stats

Citations136
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207