MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Image‐based 3D Modelling: A Review

2006· review· en· W2145595389 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

VenueThe Photogrammetric Record · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryComputer sciencePipeline (software)Range (aeronautics)Image (mathematics)Image processingComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)Remote sensingGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper the main problems and the available solutions are addressed for the generation of 3D models from terrestrial images. Close range photogrammetry has dealt for many years with manual or automatic image measurements for precise 3D modelling. Nowadays 3D scanners are also becoming a standard source for input data in many application areas, but image‐based modelling still remains the most complete, economical, portable, flexible and widely used approach. In this paper the full pipeline is presented for 3D modelling from terrestrial image data, considering the different approaches and analysing all the steps involved.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.228 · 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