QUALITY ANALYSIS OF 3D SURFACE RECONSTRUCTION USING MULTI-PLATFORM PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SYSTEMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the necessity of accurate 3D surface reconstruction has been more pronounced for a wide range of mapping, modelling, and monitoring applications. The 3D data for satisfying the needs of these applications can be collected using different digital imaging systems. Among them, photogrammetric systems have recently received considerable attention due to significant improvements in digital imaging sensors, emergence of new mapping platforms, and development of innovative data processing techniques. To date, a variety of techniques haven been proposed for 3D surface reconstruction using imagery collected by multi-platform photogrammetric systems. However, these approaches suffer from the lack of a well-established quality control procedure which evaluates the quality of reconstructed 3D surfaces independent of the utilized reconstruction technique. Hence, this paper aims to introduce a new quality assessment platform for the evaluation of the 3D surface reconstruction using photogrammetric data. This quality control procedure is performed while considering the quality of input data, processing procedures, and photo-realistic 3D surface modelling. The feasibility of the proposed quality control procedure is finally verified by quality assessment of the 3D surface reconstruction using images from different photogrammetric systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".