Development of Integrative Methodologies for Effective Excavation Progress Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excavation is one of the primary projects in the construction industry. Introducing various technologies for full automation of the excavation can be a solution to improve sensing and productivity that are the ongoing issues in this area. This paper covers three aspects of effective excavation progress monitoring that include excavation volume estimation, occlusion area detection, and 5D mapping. The excavation volume estimation component enables estimating the bucket volume and ground excavation volume. To achieve mapping of the hidden or occluded ground areas, integration of proprioceptive and exteroceptive sensing data was adopted. Finally, we proposed the idea of 5D mapping that provides the info of the excavated ground in terms of geometric space and material type/properties using a 3D ground map with LiDAR intensity and a ground resistive index. Through experimental validations with a mini excavator, the accuracy of the two different volume estimation methods was compared. Finally, a reconstructed map for occlusion areas and a 5D map were created using the bucket tip's trajectory and multiple sensory data with convolutional neural network techniques, respectively. The created 5D map would allow for the provision of extended ground information beyond a normal 3D ground map, which is indispensable to progress monitoring and control of autonomous excavation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".