MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734570423 · doi:10.1088/1361-6501/aa8011

Methods and considerations to determine sphere center from terrestrial laser scanner point cloud data

2017· article· en· W2734570423 on OpenAlexafffund
Prem Rachakonda, Bala Muralikrishnan, Luc Cournoyer, Geraldine S. Cheok, Vincent Lee, Meghan Shilling, Daniel Sawyer

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science and Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsPoint cloudLaser scanningPoint (geometry)MetrologyComputer scienceLaserDimensional metrologyCenter (category theory)Integrating sphereRemote sensingOpticsComputer visionMathematicsGeographyPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dimensional Metrology Group (DMG) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is performing research to support the development of documentary standards within ASTM E57 committee. This committee is addressing the point-to-point performance evaluation of a subclass of 3D imaging systems called Terrestrial Laser Scanners (TLSs) which are laser-based and use spherical coordinate system. This paper discusses the usage of sphere targets for this effort and methods to minimize the errors due to the determination of their centers. The key contributions of this paper include the methods to segment sphere data from TLS point cloud and the study of some of the factors that influence the determination of sphere centers.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: Other design
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement Science and TechnologySame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207