MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919291874 · doi:10.1142/s0218195919500018

Partial Enclosure Range Searching

2019· article· en· W2919291874 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregory Bint, Anil Maheshwari, Michiel Smid, Subhas C. Nandy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRectanglePolygon (computer graphics)MathematicsParallelogramIntersection (aeronautics)CombinatoricsRange (aeronautics)Set (abstract data type)Discrete mathematicsGeometryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new type of range searching problem, called the partial enclosure range searching problem, is introduced in this paper. Given a set of geometric objects [Formula: see text] and a query region [Formula: see text], our goal is to identify those objects in [Formula: see text] which intersect the query region [Formula: see text] by at least a fixed proportion of their original size. Two variations of this problem are studied. In the first variation, the objects in [Formula: see text] are axis-parallel line segments and the goal is to count the total number of members of [Formula: see text] so that their intersection with [Formula: see text] is at least a given proportion of their size. Here, [Formula: see text] can be an axis-parallel rectangle or a parallelogram of arbitrary orientation. In the second variation, [Formula: see text] is a polygon and [Formula: see text] is an axis-parallel rectangle. The problem is to report the area of the intersection between the polygon [Formula: see text] and a query rectangle [Formula: see text].

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)0.001
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 score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & ApplicationsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207