MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409787683 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-309

Research on the analysis of bridge quality monitoring data based on laser point cloud technology

2025· article· en· W4409787683 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudCloud computingBridge (graph theory)Data scienceComputer scienceLaserPoint (geometry)EngineeringMechanical engineeringOpticsMedicineMathematicsOperating systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bridge construction is an important link in the construction of transportation infrastructure, which plays a key role in ensuring the smoothness and safety of road traffic.This paper systematically organizes the process of laser point cloud technology in bridge quality monitoring, and proposes an improved adaptive hyperparametric RANSAC point cloud segmentation algorithm to realize the bridge quality monitoring.Firstly, the basic process of RANSAC algorithm is sorted out, and the mean downsampling operation is adopted to replace the center of gravity downsampling method, which improves the point average degree of downsampling.Next, the FPS algorithm is combined with the method of selecting seed points to expand the range of selected values of seed points under the premise of meeting the relevant requirements.After splitting multiple fitting surfaces, the split fitting surfaces are combined to optimize the unfitted points and improve the fitting rate of the algorithm.The detection accuracy of the bearing flatness of bridge number 3 under the method of this paper is improved by 78.26%, and the maximum deviation of the detected bridge constitutive point offset is only 0.623m, which is within the acceptable range of bridge error monitoring.The feasibility of laser point cloud technology for bridge quality monitoring is verified.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207