MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232737280 · doi:10.1109/vg.2005.194102

Volume rendering for high dynamic range displays

2005· article· en· W4232737280 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Ghosh, M. Trentacoste, W. Heidrich

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume graphics ... · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University
KeywordsRendering (computer graphics)Volume renderingComputer scienceHigh dynamic rangeTone mappingComputer graphics (images)Real-time renderingDynamic rangeComputer vision3D renderingTransfer functionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic range restrictions of conventional displays limit the amount of detail that can be represented in volume rendering applications. However, high dynamic range displays with contrast ratios larger than 50,000 : 1 have recently been developed. We explore how these increased capabilities can be exploited for common volume rendering algorithms such as direct volume rendering and maximum projection rendering. In particular, we discuss distribution of intensities across the range of the display contrast and a mapping of the transfer function to a perceptually linear space over the range of intensities that the display can produce. This allows us to reserve several just noticeable difference steps of intensities for spatial context apart from clearly depicting the main regions of interest. We also propose generating automatic transfer functions for order independent operators through histogram-equalization of data in perceptually linear space.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume graphics ...Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207