MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954309327 · doi:10.29173/mocs108

A Case Study for 3D Modeling Process Analysis based on BIM Log File

2019· article· en· W2954309327 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nan Zhang, Yichen Tian, Mohamed Al‐Hussein

Bibliographic record

VenueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBuilding information modelingFraming (construction)Process (computing)ChartData fileReading (process)Engineering drawingDatabaseSoftware engineeringProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building Information Modeling (BIM) design becomes popular with the growing needs of enhancing construction efficiency. During the design process, 3D Modeling is the foundation of generating and analyzing building information. The modeling tool, Autodesk Revit, automatically creates log files, which can record all design activities. This paper investigates and analyzes the operation data from unstructured temporal Revit log files. These data were recorded when executing the general and external command to build a 3D model of a typical residential two-story building. The objectives of this analysis were to figure out the influence elements of producing a good framing model and to give some suggestions for improving modeling efficiency. In order to extract the useful specific commands, the information in the text journal file was transferred to an excel file, before reading by a data mining tool, RapidMiner. It generated a pie chart to show the repetition amount of modeling activities. Analyzing the reasons of repeating some commands frequently, this paper contributes the possibility to reduce the useless repetition for building a good 3D model.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit ProceedingsSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207