MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972424251 · doi:10.1117/12.658527

Application of Dempster-Shafer theory for fusion of lap joints inspection data

2006· article· en· W1972424251 on OpenAlexafffund
Zheng Liu, A. Fahr, Nezih Mrad

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsDempster–Shafer theorySensor fusionEddy currentFuse (electrical)Computer scienceFuselageGround truthArtificial intelligenceEddy-current testingNondestructive testingPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningComputer visionEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work the Dempster-Shafer (DS) theory has been used for fusing nondestructive inspection (NDI) data. The success of a DS-based method depends on how the basic probability assignment (BPA) or probability mass function is defined. In the case of nondestructive inspection of aircraft lap joints, which is of interest here, the inspection data is presented in raster-scanned images. These images are discriminated by iteratively trained classifiers. The BPA is defined based on the conditional probability of information classes and data classes, which are obtained from ground truth data and NDI measurements respectively. Then, the Dempster rule of combination is applied to fuse multiple NDI inputs. The maximum mass outputs determine the final classification results. In this work, conventional eddy current (ET) and pulsed eddy current (P-ET) techniques were employed to inspect the fuselage lap joints of a service-retired Boeing 727 aircraft in order to map corrosion sites. Estimation of the remaining thickness from the inspection data is the aim of this work. The ground truth data was obtained by teardown inspections followed by a digital X-ray thickness mapping technique, which provides accurate thickness values. The experimental results verify the efficiency of the proposed method.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207