Quantitative investigation on the accuracy and precision of Scan-to-BIM under different modelling scenarios
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
Accurate as-built information is required to operate, maintain, and adapt existing buildings. Scan-to-BIM has become a feasible approach for collecting and modelling 3D as-built information and has three phases: (1) scanning, (2) registration, and (3) modelling. This paper focuses on the modelling phase, which can currently be conducted either manually or semi-automatically. As-built conditions of a building are surveyed, and the geometry is modeled in a series of modelling scenarios. For each trial, geometric dimensions of the BIMs are compared to ground truth dimensions. This paper assesses the impact of levels of automation and modeller training on the accuracy and precision of generated BIMs. Quantitative models are developed for modelling scenarios using empirical datasets. Lastly, the impacts of degrees of accuracy are discussed. This study provides insight into the dimensional certainty of BIMs generated by Scan-to-BIM and helps decision-makers assess the risk of decisions made based on this information.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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