MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DEVELOPING VERIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR BUILDING INFORMATION MODELS OF HERITAGE BUILDINGS WITH HETEROGENEOUS DATASETS

2017· article· en· W2748508328 on OpenAlexafffundabout
L. Chow, Stephen Fai

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
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBuilding information modelingPoint cloudComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringDigitizationDocumentationData model (GIS)Building modelInformation modelApplication programming interfaceBlock (permutation group theory)Cloud computingScope (computer science)Cultural heritageDatabaseEngineeringGeographyArchaeologySimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The digitization and abstraction of existing buildings into building information models requires the translation of heterogeneous datasets that may include CAD, technical reports, historic texts, archival drawings, terrestrial laser scanning, and photogrammetry into model elements. In this paper, we discuss a project undertaken by the Carleton Immersive Media Studio (CIMS) that explored the synthesis of heterogeneous datasets for the development of a building information model (BIM) for one of Canada’s most significant heritage assets – the Centre Block of the Parliament Hill National Historic Site. The scope of the project included the development of an as-found model of the century-old, six-story building in anticipation of specific model uses for an extensive rehabilitation program. The as-found Centre Block model was developed in Revit using primarily point cloud data from terrestrial laser scanning. The data was captured by CIMS in partnership with Heritage Conservation Services (HCS), Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), using a Leica C10 and P40 (exterior and large interior spaces) and a Faro Focus (small to mid-sized interior spaces). Secondary sources such as archival drawings, photographs, and technical reports were referenced in cases where point cloud data was not available. As a result of working with heterogeneous data sets, a verification system was introduced in order to communicate to model users/viewers the source of information for each building element within the model.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes3
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