MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097470628 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2035_10

Rapid automated processing of structural orientation from time-of-flight LiDAR mapping

2020· article· en· W3097470628 on OpenAlexafffundabout
James A. Smith, Shelby Yee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsRTDS Technologies (Canada)
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsLidarOrientation (vector space)Remote sensingComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The three-dimensional axis mapping (3DAM) method allows rapid capture and orientation of point cloud data to magnetic north in GPS and survey denied environments. From the collected point cloud data, the 3DAM algorithm automates the identification of rock structures and the processing of their orientation into a stereonet format, at the point of data collection, on a timescale measured in seconds. A tool, the Axis Mapper, was created based upon this method and is intended to streamline geological and geotechnical underground mapping of structural orientation data. The objective of this paper is to compare the precision and speed of capture for the Axis Mapper’s orientation measurement to the most prevalent method of orientation capture in underground mines, the structural compass. Structural orientation data captured from two case studies—one, at a base metals mine in South America; the second, two mines in Ontario, Canada—were compiled and compared for precision and speed between the Axis Mapper’s 3DAM method and a compass. Additional locations of data captured were planned but could not be collected for this paper. Sources of measurement interference, which could not be mitigated, were present at both case study locations. The data collected from the case studies suggest that structural orientation captured by the Axis Mapper and compass are within 11° dip direction and 5° dip of each other; except in one discreet example which identified a dip difference of 23°. The Canadian case study suggests the Axis Mapper is up to three times faster at collecting structural orientation data when compared with the compass. The authors consider the conclusions preliminary and non-definitive due to the limited number of collection sites, limited available data, and uncontrolled sources of measurement interference. Additional data collected in controlled settings are necessary to better define the comparative precision and collection speed of the Axis Mapper data.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207