MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DEVELOPING HISTORIC BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE IN IRELAND

2017· article· en· W2746860983 on OpenAlexaff
M. Murphy, Anthony Corns, John D. Cahill, K. Eliashvili, A. Chenau, Cailen Pybus, Robert Shaw, Gary Devlin, Aaron Deevy, Linh Truong‐Hong

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding information modelingCultural heritageComponent (thermodynamics)Computer scienceSoftwareRepresentation (politics)Information modelArchitectural modelArchitectureSet (abstract data type)World Wide WebSoftware engineeringArchitectural engineeringSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Cultural heritage researchers have recently begun applying Building Information Modelling (BIM) to historic buildings. The model is comprised of intelligent objects with semantic attributes which represent the elements of a building structure and are organised within a 3D virtual environment. Case studies in Ireland are used to test and develop the suitable systems for (a) data capture/digital surveying/processing (b) developing library of architectural components and (c) mapping these architectural components onto the laser scan or digital survey to relate the intelligent virtual representation of a historic structure (HBIM). While BIM platforms have the potential to create a virtual and intelligent representation of a building, its full exploitation and use is restricted to narrow set of expert users with access to costly hardware, software and skills. The testing of open BIM approaches in particular IFCs and the use of game engine platforms is a fundamental component for developing much wider dissemination. The semantically enriched model can be transferred into a WEB based game engine platform.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207