Identification of the Structural State in Automated Modular Construction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of the Structural State in Automated Modular Construction Aparna Harichandran, Benny Raphael and Abhijit Mukherjee Pages 187-193 (2019 Proceedings of the 36th ISARC, Banff, Canada, ISBN 978-952-69524-0-6, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: Automated construction involves complex interactions between machines and humans. Unless all possible scenarios involving construction and equipment are carefully evaluated, it may lead to failure of the structure or may cause severe accidents. Hence monitoring of automated construction is very important and sensors should be deployed for obtaining information about the actual state of the structure and the equipment. However, interpreting data from sensors is a great challenge. In this research, a methodology has been developed for monitoring in automated construction. The overall methodology involves a combination of traditional model-based system identification and machine learning techniques. The scope of this paper is limited to the machine learning module of the methodology. The efficacy of this approach is tested and evaluated using experiments involving the construction of a steel structural frame with one storey and one bay. The construction is carried out by a top-to-bottom method. During the construction of the frame, 99 base cases of normal operations are involved. 158 base cases of possible failures have been enumerated. Failure cases involve, for example, certain lifting platforms moving faster than others, improper connections of joints, etc. Strain gauges and accelerometers are installed on the structure and the data from these sensors are used to determine possible failure scenarios. Preliminary results indicate that machine learning has good potential for identifying activities and states in automated construction. Keywords: Structural Monitoring, System Identification, Machine Learning, Automated Construction Monitoring DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2019/0026 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it