MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985168756 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.10.055

Extracting of Cross Section Profiles from Complex Point Cloud Data Sets

2019· article· en· W2985168756 on OpenAlex
H. Setareh Kokab, Jill Urbanic

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

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudSlicingDBSCANComputer scienceCluster analysisSegmentationPython (programming language)Section (typography)SoftwareCloud computingPoint (geometry)Data miningNoise (video)AlgorithmFuzzy clusteringArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)GeometryImage (mathematics)Canopy clustering algorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Point cloud data sets are widely used in design and manufacturing. Extracting 2D and 3D features from a point cloud is a field that many researchers are working on. In the present work, a slicing algorithm is implemented for segmenting a point cloud by parallel planes in the X, Y and Z directions and storing the point coordinates within each sectioned plane into separate files. After slicing, a new method is developed for filtering and extracting the outer boundary for each cross section. In the next step, this algorithm is combined with the density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) method to achieve a better boundary extraction result for complex outlines. The codes are written in Python (v. 3.7) and executed in Spyder using the Anaconda software package (v. 5.3.1). Complex case studies (*.STL lung model and a femur model) are used to illustrate the merits of this approach.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.250 · 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