MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6917678253 · doi:10.57922/tcrc.616

Human-Robot Collaborative Workflow for Remote Decommissioning and Demolition

2022· article· en· W6917678253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUNB Conferences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeconstruction (building)Nuclear decommissioningDemolitionWorkflowContext (archaeology)Plan (archaeology)Process (computing)Modular design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demand for new deconstruction and demolition approaches is escalating as structures built in 20th century development booms approach their end of life. Rehabilitation and careful deconstruction approaches are increasingly economically and environmentally motivating. For example, in Ontario, Canada multi-decade efforts to decommission nuclear power plants are challenging teams of engineers, researchers, venders, and laborers. In these hazardous scenarios, classical heavy demolition approaches are not an option, and the asset owners find that the costly development of novel workflows and technologies to plan and undergo these deconstruction operations is the only option. These trends present construction researchers with an opportunity to develop technologies and processes to achieve deconstruction project goals with improved efficiency, certainty, and safety. This paper presents a modular framework for remote human-robot collaboration for waste management in decommissioning and demolition. The proposed framework includes robotic platform reality data capture, scan processing (e.g., segmentation, surface estimation, and recognition), gamified waste packing in virtual reality (VR), and packing plan execution. A comprehensive review of state-of-the-art technologies of each module is explored from the standpoint of applicability to deconstruction and demolition. Then, an autonomous robotic platform for reality data capture is presented. A reconfigurable semi-automated VR platform for waste packing optimization is presented as an example of this process workflow in the context of remote deconstruction and demolition. Finally, the ideas of robotic packing plan execution are discussed as future work.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNB ConferencesSame topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207