MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098319661

Visualization of 3D Geologic maps: an example using volumetric clipping with hardware

2005· article· en· W7098319661 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Ecology and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)VisualizationClipping (morphology)Interpolation (computer graphics)Texture mappingSection (typography)Intersection (aeronautics)Representation (politics)Geologic mapStencil
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geological map is an essential means of convey-ing information about a geological domain. However, quantitative applications and precise depth mapping call for a 3D representation of geological units. On such 3D maps, the 2D visualization of rock units along a section remains essential to understand and check the consistency of a 3D model. We propose a fast and simple tool to slice in real-time a sealed geological model by one or several arbitrary planes. The intersection polygon between a section plane and the geological model is never explicitly computed in three-dimensions, but filled by graphics hardware in screen space using the stencil buffer. Edge detec-tion algorithms can be run on the section to draw sharp unit boundaries. The polygon is filled either by one single color corresponding to the legend, or by a two-dimensional texture image corresponding to the interpolation of a rock property inside the geolog-ical unit. The method is applied to the imaging of a continuous velocity model in an oil reservoir without generating a large velocity cube, and to the visualiza-tion of complex Precambrian units in the Canadian

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Ecology and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207