MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1874608359 · doi:10.1111/jmi.12308

Automated segmentation of wood fibres in micro‐CT images of paper

2015· article· en· W1874608359 on OpenAlexafffund
Yash Sharma, A.B. Phillion, D. Mark Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Microscopy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaMitacs
KeywordsPapermakingSegmentationMaterials scienceFiberArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTracking (education)Composite materialComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel algorithm has been developed and validated to isolate individual papermaking fibres in micro-computed tomographic images of paper handsheets as a first step to characterize the structure of the paper. The three-step fibre segmentation algorithm segments the papermaking fibres by (i) tracking the hollow inside the fibres via a modified connected component methodology, (ii) extracting the fibre walls using a distance transform and (iii) labelling the fibres through collapsed sections by a final refinement step. Furthermore, postprocessing algorithms have been developed to calculate the length and coarseness of the segmented fibres. The fibre segmentation algorithm is the first ever reported method for the automated segmentation of the tortuous three-dimensional morphology of papermaking fibres within microstructural images of paper handsheets. The method is not limited to papermaking fibres, but can be applied to any material consisting of tortuous and hollow fibres.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MicroscopySame topicDigital Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207