Using 4D modelling in a university-museum research partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of virtual heritage, scientific 4D modelling brings together interdisciplinary expertise in an iterative process to create and revise digital models that also reflect the passage of time. Our work focusses on making this type of model serve the needs of museologists by linking various documentary sources (both text-based and iconographic) and testimonials to the 4D model. Our case study involves a former industrial site. Over the decades, various buildings in this old factory complex have been the subject of construction, demolition and redevelopment. Under a university-museum research partnership, our 4D model will be part of an interactive digital environment designed for a museum exhibit. Our goal is to maximize the flexibility of the model, which was based on i) research to find new documentary sources, ii) oral testimonies to complete the documentary record and iii) testing to make the user experience more cognitively enriching. This approach has strengthened the partnership between the museum and the university, made university research available to a wider audience and provided a modest museum with a new tool.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".