MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121838925 · doi:10.15353/jcvis.v6i1.3562

Constraints for Time-Multiplexed Structured Light with a Hand-held Camera

2021· article· en· W3121838925 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sepehr Ghavam, Matthew Post, Mohamed A. Naiel, Mark Lamm, Paul Fieguth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsChristie (Canada)University of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReprojection errorHomographyComputer visionPinhole camera modelArtificial intelligenceCamera matrixProjectorComputer scienceStructured lightCamera auto-calibrationCamera resectioningPinhole cameraPixelFrame (networking)Point (geometry)Computer graphics (images)MathematicsImage (mathematics)Projective testProjective spaceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-frame structured light in projector-camera systems affords high-density and non-contact methods of 3D surface reconstruction. However, they have strict setup constraints which can become expensive and time-consuming. Here, we investigate the conditions under which a projective homography can be used to compensate for small perturbations in pose caused by a hand-held camera. We synthesize data using a pinhole camera model and use it to determine the average 2D reprojection error per point correspondence. This error map is grouped into regions with specified upper-bounds to classify which regions produce sufficiently minimal error to be considered feasible for a structured-light projector-camera system with a hand-held camera. Empirical results demonstrate that a sub-pixel reprojection accuracy is achievable with a feasible geometric constraints

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging SystemsSame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207