MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520903308 · doi:10.3390/s16091486

Automated As-Built Model Generation of Subway Tunnels from Mobile LiDAR Data

2016· article· en· W2520903308 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Arastounia

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEllipseRangingStandard deviationCurvatureLidarOrientation (vector space)ResidualOutlierCross section (physics)GeodesyGeologyComputer scienceGeometryRemote sensingMathematicsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes fully-automated methods for as-built model generation of subway tunnels employing mobile Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data. The employed dataset is acquired by a Velodyne HDL 32E and covers 155 m of a subway tunnel containing six million points. First, the tunnel's main axis and cross sections are extracted. Next, a preliminary model is created by fitting an ellipse to each extracted cross section. The model is refined by employing residual analysis and Baarda's data snooping method to eliminate outliers. The final model is then generated by applying least squares adjustment to outlier-free data. The obtained results indicate that the tunnel's main axis and 1551 cross sections at 0.1 m intervals are successfully extracted. Cross sections have an average semi-major axis of 7.8508 m with a standard deviation of 0.2 mm and semi-minor axis of 7.7509 m with a standard deviation of 0.1 mm. The average normal distance of points from the constructed model (average absolute error) is also 0.012 m. The developed algorithm is applicable to tunnels with any horizontal orientation and degree of curvature since it makes no assumptions, nor does it use any a priori knowledge regarding the tunnel's curvature and horizontal orientation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207