Stability Analysis for a Multi-Camera Photogrammetric System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumer-grade digital cameras suffer from geometrical instability that may cause problems when used in photogrammetric applications. This paper provides a comprehensive review of this issue of interior orientation parameter variation over time, it explains the common ways used for coping with the issue, and describes the existing methods for performing stability analysis for a single camera. The paper then points out the lack of coverage of stability analysis for multi-camera systems, suggests a modification of the collinearity model to be used for the calibration of an entire photogrammetric system, and proposes three methods for system stability analysis. The proposed methods explore the impact of the changes in interior orientation and relative orientation/mounting parameters on the reconstruction process. Rather than relying on ground truth in real datasets to check the system calibration stability, the proposed methods are simulation-based. Experiment results are shown, where a multi-camera photogrammetric system was calibrated three times, and stability analysis was performed on the system calibration parameters from the three sessions. The proposed simulation-based methods provided results that were compatible with a real-data based approach for evaluating the impact of changes in the system calibration parameters on the three-dimensional reconstruction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".