A method for detecting and monitoring changes to the Okotoks Erratic – “Big Rock” provincial historic site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Designing and implementing effective strategies for managing heritage resources throughout the world has become critically important as the impacts of climate change and human-caused destruction are increasingly felt. Of particular importance is the ability to identify and track fast- and slow-moving processes associated with weathering, erosion and the movement or removal of heritage objects by natural and human agents. In this paper, the authors demonstrate how 3D laser scanning can be used to detect and monitor changes to the Okotoks Erratic “Big Rock” Provincial Historic Resource in Alberta, Canada, over a period of 7 years. Design/methodology/approach Terrestrial laser scanning surveys of the Okotoks Erratic “Big Rock” Provincial Historic Resource were undertaken in 2013, 2016 and 2020. Registration was used to place the three epochs of point clouds into a unique datum for comparison using the cloud-to-cloud distance function in Cloud Compare. Findings The movement/repositioning of rocks around the base of the erratic, the emergence of “unofficial” paths and changes to interpretive trails and fencing were all identified at the site over the time period of the study. Practical implications Current conservation at the Okotoks Big Rock focus primarily on the rock art panels that are scattered over the erratic. The results of this study indicate they should be broadened so that the geological integrity of the site, which is intrinsically linked to its cultural value, can also be maintained. Originality/value This is the first study the authors are aware of that utilizes terrestrial laser scanning + change detection analysis to identify and track changes to a heritage site over a period as long as 7 years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".