MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unified Direct Method for Land Subdivision: Circular Sides Permitted

2008· article· en· W2171433553 on OpenAlexaff
Said M. Easa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surveying Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubdivisionPolygon (computer graphics)SolverComputer scienceLine (geometry)Cartesian coordinate systemIntersection (aeronautics)Function (biology)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationGeometryMathematicsEngineeringGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land subdivision is an important activity in surveying engineering. Given a polygon-shaped area of land, the objective is normally to divide the land into two areas with specific requirements. Existing methods for land subdivision are applicable only when the sides of the land are all straight lines. This paper presents a unified direct method that can handle tracts of land with one or more circular sides. The ends of the partitioning line are assumed to connect straight and circular sides. Using a Cartesian coordinate system, three formulas representing the foundation of the proposed method were developed: (1) the function of the circular side; (2) the intersection between the partitioning line and the circular side; and (3) the area of the circular segment which is cut by the partitioning line. The resulting nonlinear problem was solved using the Excel-based, Premium Solver software. Any partitioning case can be handled by a simple change to the worksheet. Tracts of land with all-straight sides are special cases that correspond to a very large radius of the circular side. In addition, the proposed method can handle optimization objectives that cannot be addressed by existing methods, such as minimizing the difference between the frontages of the partitioned parts.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surveying EngineeringSame topic3D Modeling in Geospatial ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207