MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912107306

Proceedings of the 4th Joint Symposium on Computational Aesthetics, Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering, and Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling

2014· article· en· W2912107306 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Mould

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSketchAnimationRendering (computer graphics)Computer scienceComputer graphics (images)Computer animationComputer facial animationHuman–computer interactionMultimediaAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expressive is the joint symposium on Computational Aesthetics, Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering, and Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling. Expressive 2014 is the fourth annual Expressive event and we have returned to Vancouver, where the first Expressive was also held. Expressive's three subconferences have distinct but related agendas. Computational Aesthetics bridges the analytic and synthetic by integrating aspects of computer science, philosophy, psychology, and the fine, applied, and performing arts. CAe seeks to facilitate both the analysis and the augmentation of creative behaviors. Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering is concerned with computational techniques for visual communication; such techniques usually generate imagery and motion which is expressive, rather than photorealistic, although possibly including realistic elements. The goal of the Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling symposium is to explore the models, algorithms, and technologies needed to enable effective sketch-based interfaces. SBIM investigates novel methods for classification and recognition of hand-drawn shapes, and ways of using these techniques for creating or editing text, mathematics, and 3D shapes.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207