MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226502965 · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2022.103489

A survey on RGB-D datasets

2022· article· en· W4226502965 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Vision and Image Understanding · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsRGB color modelComputer scienceMonocularArtificial intelligenceField (mathematics)Computer visionMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RGB-D data is essential for solving many problems in computer vision . Hundreds of public RGB-D datasets containing various scenes, such as indoor, outdoor, aerial, driving, and medical, have been proposed. These datasets are useful for different applications and are fundamental for addressing classic computer vision tasks , such as monocular depth estimation. This paper reviewed and categorized image datasets that include depth information. We gathered 231 datasets that contain accessible data and grouped them into three categories: scene/objects, body, and medical. We also provided an overview of the different types of sensors, depth applications, and we examined trends and future directions of the usage and creation of datasets containing depth data, and how they can be applied to investigate the development of generalizable machine learning models in the monocular depth estimation field.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.318
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