An OpenBIM-based 4D approach to support coordination meetings in virtual reality environments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notwithstanding the emergence of Virtual Reality technologies, the solutions available on the market for integrating 4D and Virtual Reality are not well adapted to the principles of BIM and only propose certain visualization functionalities. Indeed, generally, such solutions are mainly simple visualization tools which do not offer BIM-based collaborative tools such as BIM Collaboration Format (BCF)-based exchanges. Our research aims to develop a method and subsequent prototype to integrate an IFC-compliant 3D model and a planning schedule in order to perform a 4D simulation in a Virtual Reality environment having BCF-based information exchange capabilities. The prototype developed achieved its theoretical and technical objectives, namely, to validate our hypothesis that the BCF can be implemented in a VR environment and support 4D simulation-based collaboration. The proposed method allows to identify some lessons learned, in terms of success factors as well as areas for improvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it