MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806383563 · doi:10.1109/syscon.2018.8369554

Roof report from automatically generated 3D building models by straight skeleton computation

2018· article· en· W2806383563 on OpenAlexaff
Kenichi Sugihara, Youry Khmelevsky

Bibliographic record

Venue2018 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
Canadian institutionsOkanagan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)RoofComputationPoint in polygonComputer scienceMonotone polygonSkeleton (computer programming)Process (computing)GeometryComputer graphics (images)AlgorithmMathematicsStructural engineeringEngineeringPolygon mesh

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D building models are important in several fields, such as urban planning and roof report for insurance industries. However, enormous time and labor has to be consumed to create these 3D models, using a 3D modeling software such as 3ds Max or SketchUp. In order to automate laborious steps, a GIS and CG integrated system is proposed for automatically generating 3D building models, based on building polygons (building footprints) on digital maps. Digital maps show most building polygons' edges meet at right angles (orthogonal polygon). In the digital map, however, not all building polygons are orthogonal. In either orthogonal or non-orthogonal polygons, the new system is proposed for automatically generating 3D building models with general shaped roofs by straight skeleton computation. In this paper, the algorithm for shrinking a polygon and forming a straight skeleton are clarified and, the new methodology is proposed for constructing roof models by assuming `the third event' and, at the end of the shrinking process, the shrinking polygon is converged to `a line of convergence'. In our research, extended straight skeleton computation is used for automatic generation of roof models. Based on the monotone polygons which straight skeleton computation forms, roof boards are automatically generated, and a top view of these roof boards can be a roof report for natural disaster damage.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2018 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon)Same topic3D Modeling in Geospatial ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207