MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408323896 · doi:10.1109/mce.2025.3549585

Empirical Studies of Large-Scale Environment Scanning by Consumer Electronics

2025· article· en· W4408323896 on OpenAlexaff
Mengyuan Wang, Yang Liu, Haopeng Wang, Haiwei Dong, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)University of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)ElectronicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringEngineeringCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an empirical evaluation of the Matterport Pro3, a consumer-grade 3D scanning device, for large-scale environment reconstruction. We conduct detailed scanning (1,099 scanning points) of a six-floor building (17,567 m$^{2}$) and assess the device's effectiveness, limitations, and performance enhancements in diverse scenarios. Challenges encountered during the scanning are addressed through proposed solutions, while we also explore advanced methods to overcome them more effectively. Comparative analysis with another consumer-grade device (iPhone) highlights the Pro3's balance between cost-effectiveness and performance. The Matterport Pro3 achieves a denser point cloud with 1,877,324 points compared to the iPhone's 506,961 points and higher alignment accuracy with an RMSE of 0.0118 meters. The cloud-to-cloud (C2C) average distance error between the two point cloud models is 0.0408 meters, with a standard deviation of 0.0715 meters. The study demonstrates the Pro3's ability to generate high-quality 3D models suitable for large-scale applications, leveraging features such as LiDAR and advanced alignment techniques.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Consumer Electronics MagazineSame topicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionFrench-language works237,207