Terrestrial LiDAR Capabilities for 3D Data Acquisition (Indoor and Outdoor) in the Context of Cadastral Modelling: A Comparative Analysis for Apartment Units
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents a comparison of terrestrial LiDAR and Distancemeter for surveying 3D spatial data of property units (indoor and outdoor) and producing cadastral representations (2D and 3D). Two study sites representing apartment buildings (co-ownership units) were surveyed with both instruments and six criteria related to data acquisition steps (survey time, number of measures, number of operators) and data modeling steps (preprocessing time, time for modelling the geometry of the objects, completeness) are used to enable the comparison. To produce 2D maps LiDAR technology ended with performance in term of survey and modeling time a little lower compare to Distancemeter. To produce 3D models LiDAR technology shows better results compare to Distancemeter. The number of objects to model and the geometric complexity of these objects are important criteria to take into consideration to determine the advantages of LiDAR technology compared to traditional instruments. For instance, LiDAR point cloud offers the possibility of producing more detailed 3D model (i.e. containing not only cadastral limits).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it