MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385275458 · doi:10.1145/3592436

Juxtaform: interactive visual summarization for exploratory shape design

2023· article· en· W4385275458 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAutomatic summarizationSketchWorkflowShape analysis (program analysis)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionStatic analysisAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present juxtaform , a novel approach to the interactive summarization of large shape collections for conceptual shape design. We conduct a formative study to ascertain design goals for creative shape exploration tools. Motivated by a mathematical formulation of these design goals, juxtaform integrates the exploration, analysis, selection, and refinement of large shape collections to support an interactive divergence-convergence shape design workflow. We exploit sparse, segmented sketch-stroke visual abstractions of shape and a novel visual summarization algorithm to balance the needs of shape understanding, in-situ shape juxtaposition, and visual clutter. Our evaluation is three-fold: we show that existing shape and stroke clustering algorithms do not address our design goals compared to our proposed shape corpus summarization algorithm; we compare juxtaform against a structured image gallery interface for various shape design and analysis tasks; and we present multiple compelling 2D/3D applications using juxtaform.

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)0.000
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 score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.269 · 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