MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226474236 · doi:10.2352/ei.2022.34.1.vda-414

Visualizing semantic 3D object clouds

2022· article· en· W4226474236 on OpenAlex

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

VenueElectronic Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonComputer scienceObject (grammar)Consistency (knowledge bases)Similarity (geometry)Artificial intelligenceSemantic similaritySet (abstract data type)Variety (cybernetics)Data miningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D object clouds, first introduced by Hong and Brooks, visualize the pairwise similarity between a set of objects and a central object of interest. This similarity is used to determine the position of each object within the cloud. However, this does not capture the semantic relationship of all the objects and the lack of consistency may reduce the expectation of finding an object when performing visual search. To generate a semantic 3D object cloud, we define and subsequently minimize an energy function that captures the pairwise similarity amongst all objects within the cloud. The energy is minimized using several statistical machine learning techniques and we show that the generated layouts from such techniques outperform those of other algorithms on a variety of metrics for evaluating layouts.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · 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