Comparing two Designs for Removing edge Violation of Stereoscopic 3d Maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereoscopic 3D (S3D) maps present a faithful image of the Earth’s surface. A stereo edge violation occurs when an object appears to be in front of the screen and is cut off by the screen edge. Two designs are proposed to remove this artifact. One applies dynamic floating windows which cover the contents existing alone on the left or right edges of images. The other is to transform all the horizontal disparities to positive values; all the perceived 3D contents are behind the screen. This study compares the two designs with respect to user preference and visual fatigue. For the selected terrain scenes, participants preferred the design of pushing back to the design of dynamic floating windows. For visual fatigue, the design of dynamic floating windows obtained higher scores in Simplified Simulator Sickness Questionnaires (SSSQs) and General Eye Symptoms Questionnaires (GESQs), which indicated higher visual fatigue. This preliminary study observed that for removing edge violation of interactive S3D maps, the design of setting 3D contents behind the screen might be better than the design of dynamic floating windows in terms of user preference and visual fatigue.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".