MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387941706 · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1002723

Augmented reality application areas for the architecture, engineering, and construction industry

2023· book-chapter· en· W4387941706 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara Rankohi, Mahsa Rezvani, Lloyd Waugh, Zhen Lei

Bibliographic record

VenueIntechOpen eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsAugmented realityDocumentationPrecast concreteVisualizationContext (archaeology)EngineeringSystems engineeringArchitectureConstruction engineeringQuality (philosophy)Engineering managementConstruction industryComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionCivil engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Augmented reality (AR) is among the technologies that have the potential to advance the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry. Yet, studies show that there remain challenges in applying AR in AEC. According to the literature, the use of AR is focused on the construction phase to address performance, supervisory, and safety-related concerns. However, other phases of AEC projects could also benefit from this technology. Accordingly, this chapter provides an application-centric study to assess the state-of-the-art applications areas of AR in the AEC industry. Various applications have been identified as visualization and simulation; in-situ experience; real-time information retrieval; maintenance, inspection, and repair; project documentation; heavy equipment operation; educational training; health and safety; site navigation; and automated measurements. To further explore these application areas, a case study was conducted using the AR solution of Trimble XR10 with HoloLens 2 in a precast construction context. The results show that existing AR technologies and systems for simulation/visualization and construction quality control are still immature. The study highlighted the current use cases, the potential for technology improvements, and the obstacles that hinder the widespread AR implementation in the AEC industry. Considering these factors, further directions and future research paths for innovators are proposed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.015

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntechOpen eBooksSame topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207