Data Fusion Process Management for Automated Construction Progress Estimation
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
This paper presents a process management framework for multisensory data fusion for the purpose of tracking the progress of construction activity. The developed framework facilitates the required type of data fusion at any given point in the construction progress, reliably and efficiently. Data are acquired from high-frequency automated technologies such as three-dimensional (3D) imaging and ultrawideband (UWB) positioning, in addition to foreman reports, schedule information, and other information sources. The results of validation through a detailed field implementation project show that the developed framework for fusing volumetric, positioning, and project control data can successfully address the challenges associated with fusing multisensory data by tracking activities rather than objects, a feature that offers superior capability, efficiency, and accuracy over the length of the project. Other contributions of this research include the development of fusion processes that are performed at higher levels of data fusion instead of traditional low-level fusion algorithms, thus supporting decision-making processes and a number of automated construction management applications, such as construction progress tracking, earned-value estimation, and schedule updating.
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