MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409787626 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-332

Stroke Structure Reconstruction and Virtual Display System Design for Calligraphic Seal Engraving Using Artificial Intelligence

2025· article· en· W4409787626 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngravingSeal (emblem)Computer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionEngineering drawingEngineeringArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aiming at the needs of reconstructing the structure of calligraphic seal cutting strokes and virtual display, this study designs a GAN technique that integrates three models, namely, "WGAN, DCGAN and CGAN".The CycleGAN model is used to obtain the mapping relationship between learning and style migration by utilizing its cyclic consistency loss.Adaptive pre-morphing technique is introduced to process the input image to capture the outline information and morphological features of calligraphic seal carvings, and a Generative Adversarial Network-based Generative Model for Structural Reconstruction of Calligraphic Fonts (CRA-GAN) is proposed.Meanwhile, an online virtual display system is designed to provide users with a good sense of experience in the virtual display of calligraphy.The results show that the CRA-GAN model can better capture the details and global information of the fonts, and its recognition rate of the eight calligraphic fonts ranges from 90.42% to 97.38%, and the MOS rating value of the text image is > 8.5 points, and its recognition results are in line with the observation characteristics of the human eye for calligraphic images.The FID calculation result of the CRA-GAN method ( 204.361) of the CRA-GAN method is much lower than that of other methods, which obviously improves the diversity and visual quality of the generated calligraphic fonts.This paper evaluates the user's experience of the system from five aspects: narrative experience, emotional experience, sensory experience, cognitive experience and interactive experience, and calculates that the final score of the system is in the range of 80-100, which indicates that the user's satisfaction is very high after actually experiencing the virtual display system.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207