MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206257736 · doi:10.1145/1073368.1073397

Animosaics

2005· article· en· W4206257736 on OpenAlexaff
Kaleigh Smith, Yunjun Liu, Allison Klein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnimationComputer graphics (images)Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Computer visionTileProcess (computing)Voronoi diagramFrame (networking)Artificial intelligenceMotion (physics)MosaicGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animated mosaics are a traditional form of stop-motion animation created by arranging and rearranging small objects or tiles from frame to frame. While this animation style is uniquely compelling, the traditional process of manually placing and then moving tiles in each frame is time-consuming and labourious. Recent work has proposed algorithms for static mosaics, but generating temporally coherent mosaic animations has remained open. In addition, previous techniques for temporal coherence allow non-photorealistic primitives to layer, blend, deform, or scale, techniques that are unsuitable for mosaic animations. This paper presents a new approach to temporal coherence and applies this to build a method for creating mosaic animations. Specifically, we characterize temporal coherence as the coordinated movement of groups of primitives. We describe a system for achieving this coordinated movement to create temporally coherent geometric packings of 2D shapes over time. We also show how to create static mosaics comprised of different tile shapes using area-based centroidal Voronoi diagrams.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.021

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207