Change Detection between Retrospective and Contemporary 3D Models of the Omega House at the Athenian Agora
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archaeological monuments all over the world face problems of conservation and maintenance due to natural events and processes as well as human intervention, all of which lead to their alteration and deterioration. In particular, monuments and sites that have been excavated and left exposed to the elements experience decay, which would have taken centuries prior to excavation, in just a few years when left unprotected. Thus, the necessity to detect and observe changes over time becomes paramount. Legacy data and, in particular, retrospective photogrammetric modeling, are vital tools in this process. In this work we compare two photogrammetric 3D models of the Omega House, in the Athenian Agora, to assess how much the site has changed between the time of its first excavation in 1972 and its current state. Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) is utilized to perform Boolean operations. Additionally, distance and volume calculations are performed. The software CloudCompare was used for this work. Overall, the state of Omega House monument proves to have been preserved from 1972 to 2017, except for certain differences that are highlighted as follows: The central north part of the monument in the model 2017 presents increased volume per 7.86% in comparison with the model 1972. The northeast part of the monument in the 2017 model shows decreased volume per 5.11% when compared to the model 1972. Moreover, the calculated distances between the two models from 1972 and 2017 present the greatest values in the case of the southwest and northwest parts of the monument, ranging between −17 cm to 5 cm.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".