A Framework for Visualizing Heterogeneous Construction Data Using Semantic Web Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D Visualization provides a mean for communicating different construction activities to diverse audiences. The scope, level of detail, and time resolution of the 3D visualization process are determined based on the targeted audiences. Developing the 3D visualization requires obtaining and merging heterogeneous data from different sources (such as BIM model and CPM schedule). The data merging process is usually carried out on ad hoc basis for a specific visualization case which limits the reusability of the process. This paper discusses a framework for automatic merging of heterogeneous data to create a visualization. The paper describes developing an ontology which captures concepts related to the visualization process. Then, heterogeneous data sources that are commonly used in construction are fed into the ontology which can be queried to produce different visualization scenarios. The potential of this approach has been demonstrated by providing multiple visualization scenarios that cover different audiences, levels of detail, and time resolutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".