MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111934630 · doi:10.1061/9780784413616.082

Collaborative BIM-Based Markerless Mixed Reality Framework for Facilities Maintenance

2014· article· en· W2111934630 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled El Ammari, Amin Hammad

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsBuilding information modelingComputer scienceFacility managementScheduleVisualizationAsset (computer security)Asset managementInformation sharingInformation managementInformation systemMaintenance engineeringAugmented realitySystems engineeringDatabaseEngineeringScheduling (production processes)Human–computer interactionWorld Wide WebData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facilities maintenance tasks require gathering and sharing large amounts of information related to facilities components. This information covers historical inspection data and operation information. Despite the availability of sophisticated Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMSs), these systems focus on the data management aspects (i.e. work orders, resource management and asset inventory) and lack the functions required to facilitate data collection and data entry, as well as data retrieval and visualization when and where needed. Building Information Modeling (BIM) provides opportunities to improve the efficiency of CMMSs by sharing building information between different applications/users throughout the lifecycle of the facility. This paper proposes a framework for a collaborative BIM-based Markerless Mixed Reality (BIM3R). The framework integrates CMMS, BIM, and video-based tracking in a BIM3R setting to retrieve information based on time (e.g. inspection schedule) and the location of the user, visualize maintenance operations, and support collaboration between the field and the office to enhance decision making. Finally, a prototype system is implemented and a case study is applied to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014)Same topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207