MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963275099 · doi:10.3390/rs11151749

A Model-Based Design System for Terrestrial Laser Scanning Networks in Complex Sites

2019· article· en· W2963275099 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fengman Jia, Derek D. Lichti

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsComputer sciencePoint cloudScannerLaser scanningObject (grammar)Sensitivity (control systems)Real-time computingArtificial intelligenceLaserElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid increase of terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) applications, especially for the high-accuracy modelling of large-volume objects, a design system is needed to provide solutions for both scanner and target placement that can meet the project requirements in terms of completeness, precision, economy, and reliability. In this paper, a hierarchical strategy driven by an improved optimization method is developed to solve the TLS viewpoint planning problem. In addition, the placement of the targets is determined by optimizing the target arrangement criterion, and the number of target locations is minimized by accepting the close to optimal target arrangements. Finally, the quality of the design, including the sensitivity of the object coverage to viewpoint placement and the precision of the point cloud are provided. Two building complexes located on University of Calgary campus are used as the experimental datasets in this research. The designs for scanner placement are compared with the “brute force” strategy in terms of the optimality of the solutions and runtime. The results showed that the proposed strategy provided scanning networks with a compatible quality but with more than 80% time savings in design. The number of targets necessary for registration from our system is surprisingly small, considering the volume and complexity of the networks. Through the quality assessments, the sensitivity of the object coverage to the scanner placement indicates how careful the field crew should be when placing the scanner for data capture, and the point cloud precision indicates if the network design can meet the project requirements.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207