MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978753974 · doi:10.22260/isarc2019/0026

Identification of the Structural State in Automated Modular Construction

2019· article· en· W2978753974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aparna Harichandran, Benny Raphael, Abhijit Mukherjee

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... ISARC · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Modular designComputer scienceFrame (networking)Scope (computer science)State (computer science)Strain gaugeArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAccelerometerReliability engineeringEngineeringProgramming languageStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... ISARCSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207