MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Profile Charts for Monitoring Lumber Manufacturing Using Laser Range Sensor Data

2007· article· en· W167477835 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quality Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsControl chartWavinessStatistical process controlComputer scienceRange (aeronautics)Sampling (signal processing)Process (computing)EngineeringMechanical engineeringComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time technologies using noncontact laser range sensors (LRS) have recently been introduced to improve statistical process control (SPC) programs in automated lumber mills by greatly increasing the volume of data available for SPC. However, present SPC procedures based on sampling theory developed for manual data collection do not fully utilize data from these systems. A new system of control charts is introduced here that simultaneously monitors multiple lumber surfaces and specifically targets three common sawing defects (taper, snipe/flare, and snake). Nontraditional control charts are suggested based on the decomposition of LRS measurements into trend, waviness, and roughness. The proposed charts can be used to monitor the slope parameter of a multiple linear regression model and the peak-to-peak waviness of observations from each board. Applying these methods should lead to process improvements in sawmills by better detecting common sawing problems and identifying the causes.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.417
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.130 · 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