MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969797027 · doi:10.1088/0964-1726/20/2/025005

Dispersion-based imaging for structural health monitoring using sparse and compact arrays

2011· article· en· W1969797027 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Quaegebeur, Patrice Masson, D Langlois-Demers, Philippe Micheau

Bibliographic record

VenueSmart Materials and Structures · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatching pursuitStructural health monitoringUltrasonic sensorSparse arrayAcousticsRadarDispersion (optics)Computer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Matching (statistics)Materials scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer visionOpticsCompressed sensingPhysicsMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a technique called 'excitelet' is presented for the imaging of damage in structures using the correlation of the signals measured at elements of piezoceramic arrays with dispersed versions of the excitation signal. This approach is presented as an extension of classical imaging techniques and takes advantage of the chirplet-based matching pursuit algorithm. The applicability for sparse and compact arrays is investigated experimentally on an aluminum plate and comparison with the existing embedded ultrasonic structural radar (EUSR) algorithm is performed for A0 and S0 modes for three frequency ranges of interest. Significant improvement of imaging quality is demonstrated with respect to imaging techniques using time-of-flight (ToF) and group velocity considerations for both sparse and compact piezoceramic array arrangements.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations61
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmart Materials and StructuresSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207