MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Structural Deflection Measurement with a Range Camera

2011· article· en· W2153284515 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek D. Lichti, Sonam Jamtsho, Sherif Ibrahim El‐Halawany, Hervé Lahamy, Jacky Chow, Ting On Chan, Mamdouh El‐Badry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surveying Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHigh dynamic rangeComputer scienceDeflection (physics)Observational errorAccuracy and precisionScannerResidualRange (aeronautics)OpticsMetrologyLaserMeasurement uncertaintyDynamic rangeArtificial intelligenceComputer visionAcousticsRemote sensingPhysicsAlgorithmMathematicsGeologyEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Range cameras offer great potential for the measurement of structural deformations because of their ability to directly measure video sequences of three-dimensional coordinates of entire surfaces, their compactness, and their relatively low cost compared with other active imaging technologies such as terrestrial laser scanners. Identified limitations of range cameras for high-precision metrology applications such as deformation measurement include the high (centimeter level) noise level and scene-dependent errors. This paper proposes models and methodologies to overcome these limitations and reports on the use of a SwissRanger SR4000 range camera for the measurement of deflections in concrete beams subjected to flexural load-testing. Results from three separate tests show that submillimeter precision and accuracy—assessed by comparison with estimates derived from terrestrial laser scanner data—can be achieved. The high-accuracy range camera results were realized by eliminating the systematic, scene-dependent bias of internal scattering through measurement differencing and by reducing the influence of random errors with temporal and spatial filtering strategies. Additional experiments to validate some of the fundamental modeling assumptions and to explain the possible causes of residual, submillimeter biases in the deflection estimates are also reported.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surveying EngineeringSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207