MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990780152 · doi:10.1117/12.889191

Use of 3D range cameras for structural deformation measurement

2011· article· en· W1990780152 on OpenAlexaff
Sonam Jamtsho, Derek D. Lichti

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerDeformation (meteorology)Deflection (physics)Accuracy and precisionDeformation monitoringRange (aeronautics)OpticsBeam (structure)Image resolutionObservational errorComputer scienceMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A three-dimensional range camera is a state-of-the-art imaging technology that has strong potential for various closerange high-precision measurement applications. One such application is the measurement of structural deformation under external loading conditions. Deformation tests have been conducted on two concrete beams with and without steel-reinforced polymer sheets in an indoor testing facility using an SR4000 range camera. The achieved measurement precision and accuracy were both within 1 mm when compared with a terrestrial laser scanner. Further testing on the concrete beam with the steel-reinforced polymer sheets has shown that a deformation as small as 3 mm can be reliably detected with a range camera with a measurement precision of 0.3 mm and an accuracy of 0.4 mm. These results clearly indicate the high metric potential of 3D range cameras in spite of their coarse imaging resolution and low (centimeterlevel) single point accuracy. The high accuracy can be achieved thanks to the differencing scheme used to derive the deflection estimates from two sets of range camera measurements, one at no-load and one of the beam in a loaded state, which eliminates the scene-dependent range biases such as scattering and multi-path errors.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdvanced Optical Sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207