MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A PHOTOGRAMMETRIC WORKFLOW FOR RAPID SITE DOCUMENTATION AT STOBI, REPUBLIC OF NORTH MACEDONIA

2019· article· en· W2944141769 on OpenAlexaff
Kristen Jones, George Bevan

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 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryDocumentationWorkflowSuiteSection (typography)AntiqueArchaeologyComputer scienceGeographyGeologyEngineering drawingEngineeringRemote sensingDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The so-called “Theodosian Palace” is one of the most significant Late Antique structures at the site of Stobi, in the Republic of North Macedonia. Popularly thought to be a stopping-place of Theodosius I on his way through the province of Macedonia Secunda according to the evidence of the Codex Theodosianus, the structure is in dire need of conservation with many of the stone and mortar walls threatening to collapse onto the mosaic floors below. Any conservation effort in the Republic of North Macedonia must produce rigorous documentation before any physical work can take place. The most important and time consuming component of the project preparation are section and elevation drawings documenting each of the walls stone-by-stone, with elevations and scales indicated in a format prescribed by the state. These drawings are usually done manually on graph paper in the field, with the assistance of time-honoured manual tools – the plum-bob and tape-measure –, but this method is enormously time consuming and has considerable of room for error. The present project, begun in 2016 and the subject of this paper, endeavoured to show that new, photogrammetric methods could not only improve the accuracy of these drawings, but also the speed with which they are made. Our results demonstrate an increase in accuracy by an order magnitude, from 3 cm to 3 mm, and an improvement in the time to deliver the final product from an estimated 8 months to 2 months.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.016

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
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