MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963475254 · doi:10.5194/ica-abs-1-360-2019

Estimation of building shape by block size

2019· article· en· W2963475254 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts of the ICA · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootprintBlock (permutation group theory)EstimationCity blockScale (ratio)Computer scienceBuilding modelGeographyCivil engineeringCartographyArchitectural engineeringMathematicsSimulationEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Block restructuring has been strongly emphasized in Japan for renovating cities. However, little is known about the relation between block size and building shape. Moreover, the shape of buildings designed on a block after restructuring is unclear. Some estimation methods for urban physical status, such as building footprint location, floor area, and land use, have been developed in previous research. Taima et al. (2016) developed a model to estimate the building footprint area by using GIS. The future image of the building footprint on various blocks is visualized. Similarly, Asami and Ohtaki (2000) developed a model to estimate detached house location. Orford (2010) developed a methodology for estimating the floor area of individual properties from digital infrastructure data. Shiravi et al. (2015) assessed the utility of some models for estimating floor area using three data sources: a geographic vector building footprint layer, a LiDAR data set, and field survey data for the south side of the city of Fredericton, Canada. They discussed the reliability and accuracy of each model. In other research, Brunner et al. (2009) extended a methodology for building height estimation and tried to improve its accuracy. Schmidt et al. (2010) presented an approach to the estimation of building density on the block scale. Land use (Debnath and Amin, 2016; Jiang and Liu, 2012) and floor area (Orford, 2010) are popular topics and estimated in previous studies of the urban field, but estimation of building shape has seldom been a focus in the literature. Three-dimensional estimations of buildings cannot be found. If software to estimate building shape by block shape and other conditions was developed, it would be useful to determine urban planning, such as population estimation and landuse estimation. In this study, an estimation model is developed and applied to certain areas. In this study, the relation between block size and building shape is analyzed quantitatively, and a three-dimensional building shape is estimated by a model using an urban planning GIS data set of Tokyo (Figure 1 and 2). Results show the quantitative relation between block size and building shape, and the building shape image on the blocks. Higher buildings and buildings with a basement tend to be built in larger blocks, leading to efficient use of the maximum volume permitted in the block. In addition, the region composed by larger blocks can be spacious, because the range of building setback will be long in larger blocks. Designation of a high floor area ratio may induce integration and enlargement of blocks. Blocks are less likely to be partitioned in zones when a high floor area ratio is designated.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.195 · 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