Vision Based In-Process Inspection for Robotic Automated Riveting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">As part of an ongoing collaborative research project between The University of Nottingham and Bombardier Aerospace a pair of end-effectors have been developed that allow solid riveting of aircraft fuselage panels to be performed using conventional robots.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">This paper describes the development and performance testing of a compact process monitoring system and its integration into the riveting end-effector and testing. The developed process monitoring system is based around a miniature CCD camera combined with a novel structured lighting system. The combination of the structured lighting system with image processing techniques means that good quality images of the drilled and countersunk holes and rivets can be obtained despite the confined environment and highly reflective materials involved. The impact of the system on the overall cycle time is also minimised.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The system has been successfully used to check the circularity and dimensions of the countersink of a hole drilled by the system in an Regional Jet fuselage panel and to check for the presence of any marking on the panel surface.</div>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it