MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Error Estimations in Digital Image Correlation Technique

2007· article· en· W1992673955 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsTelus (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital image correlationReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceDisplacement (psychology)Observational errorRange (aeronautics)CalibrationImage (mathematics)Digital imageCorrelationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceImage processingEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reliability for each measurement technique depends on the knowledge of it’s uncertainty and the sources of errors of the results. Among the different techniques for optical measurement techniques for full field analysis of displacements and strains, digital image correlation (DIC) has been proven to be very flexible, robust and easy to use, covering a wide range of different applications. Nevertheless the measurement results are influenced by statistical and systematical errors. We discuss a 3D digital image correlation system which provides online error information and the propagation of errors through the calculation chain to the resulting contours, displacement and strains. Performance tests for studying the impact of calibration errors on the resulting data are shown for static and dynamic applications.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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