MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D GIS modelling of road and building material stocks: A case study of Grenada

2025· article· en· W4414475772 on OpenAlexafffund
Lingfei Ye, Su‐Yin Tan, John N. Telesford

Bibliographic record

VenueResources Conservation and Recycling · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooUniversiteit Leiden
KeywordsStock (firearms)OccupancyBuilding materialGeographic information systemBuilding information modelingBuilt environmentBuilding construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying and mapping material stocks is crucial for built environment stock management and sustainable planning. This study presents a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based bottom-up approach for modelling road and building material stocks in Grenada, a small island state. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data were utilized to estimate building heights and building stocks. The first 3D WebGIS application was developed for Grenada to visualize material stocks in 3D city models. The road stocks in Grenada were estimated to be 4375 kilo tonnes (40.96 t/capita) in 2015, about one-third of building stocks, highlighting the importance of infrastructure stocks in small island states. LiDAR-derived building heights were more accurate, estimating building stocks 4.8 % lower than occupancy class-based height assumptions in the sample site. This study develops Grenada’s first road stock account and assesses a novel methodology for estimating building stocks in small island states, offering insights for enhancing resource assessment and management.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources Conservation and RecyclingSame topic3D Modeling in Geospatial ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207