Aperio: managing 3D scene occlusion using a mechanical tool analogy for visualizing multi-partmesh data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents a novel interaction model for browsing complex 3D scenes containing numerous layers of occluding and intertwining structures that often hide regions of interest. The interaction model is realized through the development of a custom visualization application, Aperio. Aperio provides a set of virtual mechanical "metal" tools, such as rods, rings, "cookie" cutters and a knife, that support real-time, interactive exploration. Cutter tools are designed to create easily-understood cutaway views (or context-preserving ribbon slices) and rings and rods provide simple path constraints that support rigid transformations of models via "sliding", providing interactive exploded-view capabilities. All tools are based on a single underlying superquadric formulation and can ―"iteratively" be picked up and replanted to generate various views. A multi-pass, GPU-based capping algorithm provides real-time "solid cuts" rendering of surface meshes. We also present a user study to provide supporting evidence of Aperio‘s interaction simplicity and effectiveness for occlusion management.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".