MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consistent Point Clouds of Narrow Spaces Using Multiscan Domain Mapping

2011· article· en· W1577592929 on OpenAlexafffund
Kuldeep K. Sareen, George K. Knopf, Roberto Canas

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoint cloudScannerLaser scanningPosition (finance)Computer scienceRange (aeronautics)Domain (mathematical analysis)Computer visionArtificial intelligencePoint (geometry)VisualizationAlgorithmGeometryMathematicsLaserOpticsEngineeringPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Three-dimensional (3D) range scanning of large spaces, such as civil structures, generates an immense cloud of 3D points with inconsistent data densities due to the limited positions of the stationary scanner, inaccessible surfaces, and narrow pathways. This density variation is the dominant detrimental factor in extracting accurate scanned shapes. This article introduces an effective scan planning methodology for capturing accurate geometry from long and narrow spaces, which minimizes the need for subsequent data approximations. The technique computes an optimum scanning range for each stationary position of the scanner that limits the density variation to a user-defined value. Three cases are proposed to define the “limited data density” and a FARO®-LS880 laser scanner is used to illustrate the proposed approach that achieves acceptable scanning results in terms of its critical shape capturing capability, overall point cloud density, and accurate point-based visualization. The experimental observations confirm that the accuracy of the scanned data can be improved by registering multiple partial scans with restricted density and positioning the data acquisition device close to the critical features. The latter recommended step decreases the incident angle to the world domain, which, in turn, reduces the surface occlusions and data density variations.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueComputer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure EngineeringSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207