MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254056783 · doi:10.22260/isarc2012/0020

RFID Indoor Location Identification for Construction Projects

2012· article· en· W4254056783 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... ISARC · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsTrilaterationRadio-frequency identificationIdentification (biology)Computer scienceLocation trackingProcess (computing)Global Positioning SystemReal-time locating systemLocation awarenessReal-time computingLocation-based serviceTelecommunicationsEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present an indoor location identification methodology using low cost passive Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) for construction projects. Method Location-aware information at construction sites is an emerging area, concerned with automating the delivery of spatial information on the location of materials, workforce, and equipment. This spatial information can provide knowledge on construction project status. Most RFID localization literature focuses on deploying active RFID tags, which are expensive and aimed at indoor localization. It has been experimented with in operating buildings but not on construction jobsites and with a different time span. For this paper low cost passive RFID-tags were used. Using this methodology, a number of passive RFID tags are distributed onsite where work is progressing and the user, such as the field superintendent, carries a mobile RFID-reader. The indoor construction work-active area is divided into exclusive zones for tracking. Each passive RFID-tag is used as a reference point with known location (LANDMARK) within a predefined zone. The reference tag's known location is used to estimate the location of the user. The methodology uses Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) as the main attribute for signal measurement to process the reader captured data. Two localization algorithms (Trilateration and Proximity) were used to identify the user location. After identifying the user's location, the user can take snapshots with a camera and write comments about onsite activities. The collected data will be then attached to the as-planned project schedule and related CAD drawings automatically at the identified location. This data is used to represent actual progress, which is then compared to as-planned baseline progress using earned value analysis. Results & Discussion An actual construction jobsite was used to build 5 test beds at different locations and different construction time spans. Experiments were conducted on the test beds to compare the results obtained from Trilateration and Proximity algorithms. The results shows mean error equals to 1m for Trilateration method with standard deviation of 0.4m and for Proximity method mean error equals to 1.76m with standard deviation of 0.5m. Indoor location identification could be utilized for tracking the project status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.201 · 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