MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184515741 · doi:10.1061/9780784479247.005

Skeleton-Based Registration of 3D Laser Scans for Automated Quality Assurance of Industrial Facilities

2015· article· en· W2184515741 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Nahangi, Laxmi Chaudhary, Jamie Yeung, Carl T. Haas, Scott Walbridge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceQuality assuranceAutomationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceLaser scanningPoint (geometry)Plan (archaeology)Image registrationLaserEngineeringImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Registration of 3D point clouds is one possible way to compare the as-built and the as-designed status of construction components. Building information models (BIM) contain detailed information about the as-designed state, particularly 3D drawings of construction components. On the other hand, using automated and accurate data acquisition methods such as laser scanning provide reliable and robust information about the as-built status of construction components. Registration therefore makes it possible to automatically compare the designed and built states in order to appropriately plan forward and generate the corrective actions required. This paper presents a new approach for reliably performing the registration with a required level of accuracy and automation within a substantially improved timeframe. Rather than performing the computationally intensive registration methods that may not work robustly for dense point clouds, the proposed framework employs the geometric skeleton of the construction components, which is extremely less dense and therefore computationally less costly for the processing step required. The method is experimentally tested for the components extruded along an axis, such as industrial assemblies (i.e. pipe spools and structural frames) for which a geometric skeleton represents the components abstractly. The registration of 3D point clouds is performed in a computationally less intensive manner, and the framework developed has the potential to be employed for (near) real-time assembly control, quality control and status assessment processes.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207