Tracking of secondary and temporary objects in structural concrete work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Previous research has shown that “Scan-vs-BIM” object recognition systems, which fuse three dimensional (3D) point clouds from terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) or digital photogrammetry with 4D project building information models (BIM), provide valuable information for tracking construction works. However, until now, the potential of these systems has been demonstrated for tracking progress of permanent structural works only; no work has been reported yet on tracking secondary or temporary structures. For structural concrete work, temporary structures include formwork, scaffolding and shoring, while secondary components include rebar. Together, they constitute most of the earned value in concrete work. The impact of tracking secondary and temporary objects would thus be added veracity and detail to earned value calculations, and subsequently better project control and performance. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Two techniques for recognizing concrete construction secondary and temporary objects in TLS point clouds are implemented and tested using real-life data collected from a reinforced concrete building construction site. Both techniques represent significant innovative extensions of existing “Scan-vs-BIM” object recognition frameworks. Findings – The experimental results show that it is feasible to recognise secondary and temporary objects in TLS point clouds with good accuracy using the two novel techniques; but it is envisaged that superior results could be achieved by using additional cues such as colour and 3D edge information. Originality/value – This article makes valuable contributions to the problem of detecting and tracking secondary and temporary objects in 3D point clouds. The power of Scan-vs-BIM object recognition approaches to address this problem is demonstrated, but their limitations are also highlighted.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".