MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409793540 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-244

Research on the Application of Virtual Reality Technology in Cultural Heritage Digitisation

2025· article· en· W4409793540 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSimulation and Modeling Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJilin Office of Philosophy and Social Science
KeywordsCultural heritageVirtual realityComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the continuous development of virtual reality technology, its application in the digitization of cultural heritage has been constantly emphasized and applied, which has an important role and significance for the protection and inheritance of cultural heritage.This paper proposes a rendering algorithm that combines LOD algorithm and occlusion rejection algorithm.The article firstly carries out theoretical research on the relevant theories and rendering processes of LOD algorithm and occlusion removal algorithm, and finally takes the cultural heritage of Shennongjia as the research object to analyze the performance of this paper's algorithm in rendering different landscape scenes of the cultural heritage of Shennongjia.This paper concludes that in the high configuration machine, the algorithm of this paper improves the rendering performance by 587% in the resolution of 1280*720, and improves the rendering performance by 1061% in the resolution of 1920*1080.In the low configuration machine, the algorithm in this paper improves the performance by 653% in 1280*720 resolution and 770% in 1920*1080 resolution.Rendering frame rate LOD combined with occlusion culling algorithm (132.65fps)> occlusion culling algorithm (79.88fps) > LOD method (18.02fps) > without any optimization algorithm (5.32fps).The total number of rendering triangles is without any optimization algorithm (55.65) > LOD algorithm (16.78) > occlusion culling algorithm (3.64) > algorithm of LOD combined with occlusion culling (1.05).

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.300 · 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