An iterative closest point method for measuring the level of similarity of 3d log scans in wood industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Canadian's lumber industry, simulators are used to predict the lumbers resulting from the sawing of a log at a given sawmill. Giving a log or several logs' 3D scans as input, simulators perform a real-time job to predict the lumbers. These simulators, however, tend to be slow at processing large volume of wood. We thus explore an alternative approximation techniques based on the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm to identify the already processed log to which an unseen log resembles the most. The main benefit of the ICP approach is that it can easily handle 3D scans with a variable number of points. We compare this ICP-based nearest neighbor predictor, to predictors built using machine learning algorithms such as the K-nearest-neighbor (kNN) and Random Forest (RF). The implemented ICP-based predictor enabled us to identify key points in using the 3D scans directly for distance calculation. The long-term goal of this ongoing research is to integrated ICP distance calculations and machine learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".