BIM-Based Automated Drafting System in Cabinet Manufacturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building information modeling (BIM) has become an important tool during the planning, designing, and construction phases in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry. Implementing manufacturing-centric BIM can improve the efficiency of communication, the interaction and the data flow between the builder and the contractor that manufactures the building components. In the construction industry, the information gap between builder and cabinet manufacturer causes cabinet rework and material waste, which leads to construction delays and cost increases. To address this issue, extending manufacturing-centric BIM applications into cabinet design and manufacturing can enhance the information exchange as well as enrich the information within the BIM model. Thus, this paper presents an automated approach based on BIM for cabinet layout design and planning in order to optimize the design and improve the drafting efficiency. An application prototype is developed in the BIM environment to achieve the objectives through the automation of drafting and planning with the support of Autodesk Revit. A case study of cabinet design and production for a residential building is subsequently presented to prove the feasibility of this application. As the main contribution of the proposed research, the in-depth integration of BIM model with the automated drafting system achieves full automation of cabinet layout design.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 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".