Surface Reconstruction for Three-Dimensional Rockfall Volumetric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laser scanning is routinely being used for the characterization and management of rockfall hazards. A key component of many studies is the ability to use the high-resolution topographic datasets for detailed volume estimates. 2.5-Dimensional (2.5D) approaches exist to estimate the volume of rockfall events; however these approaches require rasterization of the point cloud. These 2.5D volume estimates are therefore sensitive to picking an appropriate cell size to preserve resolution while minimizing interpolation, especially for lower volume rockfall events. To overcome the limitations of working with 2.5D raster datasets, surface reconstruction methods originating from the field of computational geometry can be implemented to assess the volume of rockfalls in 3D. In this technical note, the authors address the methods and implications of how the surface of 3D rockfall objects, derived from sequential terrestrial laser scans (TLS), are reconstructed for volumetric analysis. The Power Crust, Convex Hull and Alpha-shape algorithms are implemented to reconstruct a synthetic rockfall object generated in Houdini, a procedural modeling and animation software package. The reconstruction algorithms are also implemented for a selection of three rockfall cases studies which occurred in the White Canyon, British Columbia, Canada. The authors find that there is a trade-off between accurate surface topology reconstruction and ensuring the mesh is watertight manifold; which is required for accurate volumetric estimates. Power Crust is shown to be the most robust algorithm, however, the iterative Alpha-shape approach introduced in the study is also shown to find a balance between hole-filling and loss of detail.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".