MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409793595 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-155

Research on Innovation Strategy and Practice of Environmental Art Design for Digital Transformation

2025· article· en· W4409793595 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Visual Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformation (genetics)Digital transformationBusinessArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringChemistryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the deep development of digital transformation, the field of environmental art design is experiencing unprecedented changes.In this study, under the 3D scene reconstruction algorithm, the feature points of environmental art design images are collected and extracted using the camera selfcalibration algorithm, and the shape and topology of the point cloud dataset interpolated surfaces are explored using the triangular meshing algorithm.The rotation matrix is obtained by optimising the internal and external parameters of the camera using the essential matrix, basis matrix and Kruppa's equation to clarify its effect on the efficiency of digital feature extraction of images in the process of environmental art design.The results show that the mesh surfaces constructed by the algorithm proposed in this paper make better use of the point cloud data when the number of cloud points input for environmental art design is the same.The rotation matrix algorithm used in this paper can increase the correct matching point pairs of the data, reduce the false matching point pairs, reduce the false matching rate, reduce the matching time, and eliminate more false matching points.And the triangular grid formed by this method is more uniform, and the quality of the grid is improved.In addition, the average satisfaction ratings of the subjects on the nine secondary test indicators are 4.45, 4.95, 4.75, 4.18, 4.70, 4.60, 4.44, 4.50 and 4.40, respectively.It can be seen that the effect of the application of the digital transformation of the 3D model proposed in this paper has been affirmed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicDigital Media and Visual ArtFrench-language works237,207