MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164195028

AUTOMATED RETRIEVAL OF PROJECT THREE-DIMENSIONAL CAD OBJECTS IN RANGE POINT CLOUDS TO SUPPORT AUTOMATED DIMENSIONAL QA/QC

2008· article· en· W2164195028 on OpenAlex
Frédéric Bosché, Carl T. Haas

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

VenueJournal of Information Technology in Construction · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCADPoint cloudComputer scienceReworkSegmentationScannerQuality (philosophy)Quality assuranceEngineering drawingData miningArtificial intelligenceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: In construction, dimensional quality is critical but is very difficult to achieve, especially with built-in-place elements. As a result, dimensional Quality Assessment / Quality Control (QA/QC) must systematically be conducted, which often delays the value-adding work. Current methods for dimensional QA/QC are labor intensive, time consuming and therefore expensive. Comprehensive dimensional QA/QC approaches are thus often discarded for strategic ones, which may provide misleading dimensional QA/QC results, and result in future rework or failures. In the research presented here, the authors take advantage of new technologies available to the Architectural Engineering Construction & Facility Management industry – 3D Computer-Aided Design (CAD) engines, 3D positioning technologies and 3D laser scanners – to develop a method for automated retrieval of 3D CAD model objects in 3D laser scanner range images. This approach for automated CAD object retrieval allows for the automated and accurate segmentation of the as-built cloud corresponding to each project 3D CAD object, and it is robust with respect to occlusions. The quality of the output data is such that it is possible to use it to perform automated defect detection for dimensional QA/QC. In this paper, the authors first present the developed approach and demonstrate its efficiency through a simple experiment. Then, the authors discuss in more detail how the retrieval output data can be used to support automated dimensional QA/QC.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.223 · 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