MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250899932 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646396.v1

3D modelling of industrial piping systems using digital photogrammetry and laser scanning

2021· preprint· en· W4250899932 on OpenAlexaff
Jingook Hong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryMetrologyLaser scanningPipingPoint cloudResidualData acquisitionDimensional metrologyLaserComputer scienceEngineeringEngineering drawingRemote sensingComputer visionOpticsMechanical engineeringGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industrial metrology is one of the fastest growing areas in advanced technologies, such as electronics and optics, computation speed, and it has been increased in recent years. There are several tools used in industrial metrology, such as total stations, digital photogrammetry, and laser scanning. Close range digital photogrammetry has been implemented for an industrial piping system in terms of installation, inspection, and replacement. Laser scanning is also used for industrial measurements to generate 3D coordinates points. In order to develop a 3D modelling strategy, this thesis focuses on the development, selection and design of photogrammetric procedures and project specific targets. This thesis also explores image-acquiring sensors such as digital cameras and laser scanners in terms of their capabilities and advantages. Based on experimental setup accuracy, measurements of piping systems are compared for applications of two different sensors. Effects of different surface materials are examined in laser scanning applications and several different types of materials are used for acquiring point clouds data. Measurement of pipes' diameters and residual analyses are conducted with different surface materials, which are used for industrial pipes. Significant improvement in laser scanning data acquisition is examined in terms of data quality both quantitatively and qualitatively during the residual analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.106 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207