MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248539564 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2006.1716619

Shape Morphing and Reconstruction Using A Self-Organizing Feature Map

2006· article· en· W4248539564 on OpenAlexaff
P.C. Igwe, A.P. Sangole, G.K. Knopf

Bibliographic record

VenueThe 2006 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Network Proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Computer visionFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The shape reconstruction process has remained an active research area in archaeology, paleontology, forensics, cultural heritage restoration and art conservation. In all these cases, the reconstruction process is tedious and time consuming. Aside from collecting several randomly mixed fragments, the fragments also have to be glued together. A stable and efficient algorithm for computer aided reconstruction of fragmented models is introduced in this paper. This novel approach is based on the morphing technique using the deformable self organizing feature map (SOFM). The SOFM is a skeletal framework for modeling surfaces that dynamically change shape. The lattice of the SOFM is a spherical map that maintains the relative connectivity of the neighboring nodes as it transforms under external and internal forces. The digitized fragments are assigned weight vectors and morphed into the weight vectors of the original model. The technique is illustrated by reconstructing the geometry of a complete vase from the surface data acquired from several fragmented pieces.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe 2006 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Network ProceedingsSame topicImage Processing and 3D ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207