Evaluating the 3D Integrity of Underwater Structure from Motion Workflows
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Structure from motion (SfM) is an accessible and non‐intrusive method of three‐dimensional (3D) data capture popular for tropical coral reef surveying. In the north‐east Pacific Ocean, where there are many environmentally sensitive benthic organisms whose morphology and function are equally important, SfM surveys are less commonly studied. Temperate waters pose unique challenges to SfM workflows, which must be systematically unpacked to understand their impact on data quality and veracity. This uncertainty raises broader questions concerning SfM as a spatial data‐acquisition and ecological characterisation method in temperate waters, and whether a systematic workflow assessment reveals vital relationships between SfM implementation parameters, 3D data products and their implications for underwater SfM surveys. This paper, the second of two empirical assessments, reports on a series of wet‐lab and dryland tests quantifying the impact that temperate waters, underwater cameras, and photograph quantity and configuration have on SfM accuracy. These tests provided crucial accuracy benchmarks informing subsequent field‐based surveys and revealed that underwater SfM workflows can generate highly accurate 3D models in temperate waters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it