A Model-based, Optimal Design System for Terrestrial Laser Scanning Networks in Complex Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid increase of terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) applications, especially for the high-accuracy modelling of large-volume, complex objects, a design system is required to provide the optimal solutions for both scanner and target placement, so that the project requirements in terms of coverage, precision, economy and reliability can be met. In this thesis, a model-based, optimal design system for terrestrial laser scanning networks in complex sites is proposed. First, a hierarchical TLS viewpoint planning strategy driven by an improved optimization method is developed to solve the optimal scanner placement problem. The main contribution of the proposed method is to improve the efficiency in design without jeopardizing the optimality of the solution, compared with the traditional method with the extensive search strategy. In addition, the target placement for registration, which draws limited attention in the existing research, is determined by optimizing the target arrangement criterion, and the number of target locations is minimized by accepting the close to optimal target arrangement. Finally, the quality of the design, including the sensitivity of the object coverage to viewpoint placement and the precision of the point cloud are provided. The proposed methods were verified by the relatively small network first and then applied on two building complexes located on the University of Calgary campus. The design for scanner placement was compared with the “brute force” strategy in terms of the optimality of the solutions and runtime. The results showed that the proposed strategy provided scanning networks with a compatible quality but a significantly improved efficiency in design. The number of target locations necessary for registration from the proposed system was surprisingly small, considering the volume and complexity of the networks. Through the quality assessments, the sensitivity of the object coverage to the scanner placement indicated where users might need to consider viewpoint densification, and the point cloud precision indicated if the network design could meet the project requirements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".