Automated Data Acquisition in Construction with Remote Sensing Technologies
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
Near real-time tracking of construction operations and timely progress reporting are essential for effective management of construction projects. This does not only mitigate potential negative impact of schedule delays and cost overruns but also helps to improve safety on site. Such timely tracking circumvents the drawbacks of conventional methods for data acquisition, which are manual, labor-intensive, and not reliable enough for various construction purposes. To address these issues, a wide range of automated site data acquisition, including remote sensing (RS) technologies, has been introduced. This review article describes the capabilities and limitations of various scenarios employing RS enabling technologies for localization, with a focus on multi-sensor data fusion models. In particular, we have considered integration of real-time location systems (RTLSs) including GPS and UWB with other sensing technologies such as RFID, WSN, and digital imaging for their use in construction. This integrated use of technologies, along with information models (e.g., BIM models) is expected to enhance the efficiency of automated site data acquisition. It is also hoped that this review will prompt researchers to investigate fusion-based data capturing and processing.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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