AUTOMATING THE VERIFICATION OF HERITAGE BUILDING INFORMATION MODELS CREATED FROM POINT CLOUD DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The use of remote sensors to acquire metric information for building information modelling (BIM) of heritage buildings is now common. Problematically, the creation of models from that information is still largely a manual and non-quantifiable process. As a result, a key aspect of the scan-to-BIM process is verification of the accuracy of the model in relation to the metric information. The most common method to check a model element constructed from a point cloud seems to be the analysis of deviations between this element and the corresponding point cloud (Anil et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2011). It is comprised of three main steps: the computation, the visualisation and the analysis of deviations. The verification process is particularly onerous for large-scale buildings where it is necessary to ensure that all elements of a model are consistent with metric data that may come from diverse sources (Chow and Fai, 2017). In this paper, we discuss the development of a plug-in for Autodesk Revit that automates this verification process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".