Error-Correction Methods for Construction Site Image Processing under Changing Illumination Conditions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image processing is an effective tool for automated monitoring of construction projects. For the last decade, it has gained increasing acceptance in its application to progress monitoring, productivity analyses, and quality assurance. However, a notable downside exists in image processing, especially in outdoor applications such as construction project monitoring: image quality is heavily affected by ambient lighting conditions. Poor or undesirable lighting conditions produce substandard quality images, which generally lead to a high level of errors in the related image processing for information extraction. This paper presents error-correction methods that can improve the image processing results for construction progress monitoring in the postprocessing stage. The methods are applied in the postprocessing stage. The key idea behind the error-correction methods is the concept of priority to classify input images and project information into several categories based on data reliability and intelligently use the classified information for more accurate analyses of the project progress. Tests in real construction sites showed that these postprocessing methods significantly increased the accuracy of image processing-based construction progress monitoring.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it