Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-dimensional point cloud has been widely used in the cultural heritage field in the last two decades, gaining attention from both academic and industry communities. A large number of scientific papers have been published concerning this topic, which covers a wide range of journals, countries, and disciplines. There has been no comprehensive and systematic survey of recent literature performed in a scientometric way based on the complex network analysis methods. In this work, we extracted the terms (i.e., noun phrases included in the title, abstract and keywords), the documents, the countries that the research institutions are located in, and the categories that the literature belongs to from the Web of Science database to compose a term co-occurrence network, document co-citation network, collaborative country network and category co-occurrence network using CiteSpace software. Through visualizing and analyzing those networks, we identified the research hotspots, landmark literature, national collaboration, interdisciplinary patterns as well as the emerging trends through assessing the central nodes and the nodes with strong citation bursts. This work not only provides a structured view on state-of-art literature, but also reveals the future trends of employing 3D point cloud data for cultural heritage, aiding researchers carry out further research in this area.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.113 | 0.156 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".