MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403979189 · doi:10.1061/9780784479827.298

Time-Cuboid Model with Reduced False Alarms for Construction Safety

2016· article· en· W2403979189 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Wang, Saiedeh Razavi

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2016 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElevator Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuboidHazardComputer sciencePosition (finance)Benchmark (surveying)False alarmSimulationArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Struck-by-equipment hazard is a leading cause of construction fatalities. Although several proximity detection systems have been developed to alleviate the risks of this type of hazard, the frequently generated false alarms which do not represent actual hazardous situations have limited their real-world application. Therefore, the time-cuboid model is developed to enhance construction safety by preventing struck-by-equipment accidents with reduced false alarms. The time-cuboid model effectively reduces false alarms by (1) fully considering an entities’ 3D position, orientation and velocity; (2) using a dynamic and adjusted warning distance; and (3) utilizing the developed safety rules which use relative position, moving direction, speed and a pairwise 3D safety query to identify actual as well as impending spatial interferences. Simulation and a controlled field experiment were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the time-cuboid model. The time-cuboid model is effective in reducing false alarms as no false negatives are generated and all obtained false positive rates (FPRs) are zero which are much lower than the FPRs of the prevalent proximity detection method (62.1% averagely). The reduced alarm percentages (RAPs) indicate that at least 50.2% alarms generated by the prevalent method can be avoided by the time-cuboid model. Reduction of false alarms contributes to enhancing construction safety, mobility and 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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstruction Research Congress 2016Same topicElevator Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207