MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312738360 · doi:10.1061/41020(339)7

Automated Data Acquisition System to Assess Construction Worker Performance

2009· article· en· W2312738360 on OpenAlexaff
I. P. Tharindu Weerasinghe, Janaka Y. Ruwanpura

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2009 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReal-time computingProductivityWork (physics)Measure (data warehouse)IdleEngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a real time and fully automated system using signal processing techniques for data extraction from digital video images, audio files and thermal images of construction work activities. This data extraction system is developed to detect the construction workers and their movements within a given work area to measure tool time and to assess worker productivity. The worker tracking system is based on the characteristics of the hardhat extracted from digital videos to differentiate worker from others such as supervisors and engineers. Furthermore, the work status of the worker is tracked using Infrared cameras and unidirectional microphones. Thermal images extracted from infrared cameras recognize whether the worker is working or idle. The audio files from the microphones identify the sound wave patterns of the worker tools. This real time and automated information is expected to measure the tool time and productivity of a given work within a specific time period. The information extracted and analysed from the system will certainly aid the project managers to better plan to optimize labor and crews to achieve the expected productivity.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstruction Research Congress 2009Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207