MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082550304 · doi:10.1139/l08-145

Integration of four-dimensional computer-aided design modeling and three-dimensional animation of operations simulation for visualizing construction of the main stadium for the Beijing 2008 Olympic games

2009· article· en· W2082550304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ming Lu, Yang Zhang, Jianping Zhang, Zhen Hu, Jiulin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong Polytechnic University
KeywordsAnimationBeijingStadiumPlan (archaeology)Computer scienceZoomInteractive designCADScheduleComputer Aided DesignComputer animationFloor planComputer graphics (images)Engineering drawingHuman–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we give a state review of modeling methodologies for four-dimensional computer-aided design (4D CAD) and three-dimensional (3D) animation of operations simulation. We then present our efforts of integrating 4D CAD and 3D animation of operations simulation to facilitate the construction planning of the main stadium for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games (nicknamed the “Bird’s Nest”). We propose a “zoom” interface between 4D CAD and 3D animation of operations simulation to enable a natural synergy of two separate, but organically linked research streams. For concept proving and application demonstration, we seamlessly integrated two computer systems resulting from previous in-house research to plan and visualize the construction of the “Bird’s Nest” in close collaboration with the main contractor. The integrated construction planning methodology is found instrumental in visually and intuitively conveying the master project schedule and detailed operations plan for construction of the “Bird’s Nest”.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207