Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Lamp poles are one of the most abundant highway and community components in modern cities. Their supporting parts are primarily tapered octagonal cones specifically designed for wind resistance. The geometry and the positions of the lamp poles are important information for various applications. For example, they are important to monitoring deformation of aged lamp poles, maintaining an efficient highway GIS system, and also facilitating possible feature-based calibration of mobile LiDAR systems. In this paper, we present a novel geometric model for octagonal lamp poles. The model consists of seven parameters in which a rotation about the z-axis is included, and points are constrained by the trigonometric property of 2D octagons after applying the rotations. For the geometric fitting of the lamp pole point cloud captured by a terrestrial LiDAR, accurate initial parameter values are essential. They can be estimated by first fitting the points to a circular cone model and this is followed by some basic point cloud processing techniques. The model was verified by fitting both simulated and real data. The real data includes several lamp pole point clouds captured by: (1) Faro Focus 3D and (2) Velodyne HDL-32E. The fitting results using the proposed model are promising, and up to 2.9 mm improvement in fitting accuracy was realized for the real lamp pole point clouds compared to using the conventional circular cone model. The overall result suggests that the proposed model is appropriate and rigorous.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".