MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025004203 · doi:10.1080/19479832.2013.811124

3D building modeling using images and LiDAR: a review

2013· review· en· W2025004203 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Image and Data Fusion · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarComputer sciencePhotogrammetryComputer graphicsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceUpsampling3D modelingGraphicsKey (lock)RangingRange (aeronautics)Segmentation3D reconstructionComputer graphics (images)Remote sensingImage (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D modeling from images and LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) has been an active research area in the photogrammetry, computer vision, and computer graphics communities. In terms of literature review, a comprehensive survey on 3D building modeling that contains methods from all these fields will be beneficial. This article attempts to survey the state-of-the-art 3D building modeling methods in the areas of photogrammetry, computer vision, and computer graphics. The existing methods are grouped into three categories: 3D reconstruction from images, 3D modeling using range data, and 3D modeling using images and range data. The use of both data for 3D modeling is a sensor fusion approach, in which methods of image-to-LiDAR registration, upsampling, and image-guided segmentation are reviewed. For each category, the key problems are identified and solutions are addressed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.312 · 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