MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307922982 · doi:10.3390/rs8040278

Registration of Long-Strip Terrestrial Laser Scanning Point Clouds Using RANSAC and Closed Constraint Adjustment

2016· article· en· W2307922982 on OpenAlexaff
Li Zheng, Manzhu Yu, Mengxiao Song, Anthony Stefanidis, Zheng Ji, Chaowei Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRANSACPoint cloudComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceImage registrationSTRIPSComputer visionTranslation (biology)Rotation (mathematics)Constraint (computer-aided design)Laser scanningControl pointLaserMathematicsImage (mathematics)OpticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The registration of long-strip, terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) point clouds is a prerequisite for various engineering tasks, including tunnels, bridges, and roads. An artificial target-based registration method is proposed in this paper to automatically calculate registration parameters (i.e., rotation, translation) of scanned pairs without initial estimations. The approach is based on the well-known Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC) method and effectively searches the point cloud for corresponding returns from a system of artificial targets. In addition, Closed Constraint Adjustment (CCA) is integrated into the registration method to significantly reduce the accumulative error. Experimental results demonstrate the robustness and feasibility of the proposed approach. It is a promising approach to register automatically long strips with limited external control points with satisfactory precision.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207