MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996705580 · doi:10.1115/detc2007-34352

Vibration-Based Monitoring of Automotive Light Assemblies for Failure Detection

2007· article· en· W1996705580 on OpenAlexaff
Kongying Xie, Brian Surgenor, Chris K. Mechefske

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterruptAutomotive industryMicrophoneAccelerometerAutomotive engineeringReliability engineeringVibrationCondition monitoringComputer scienceEngineeringReal-time computingEmbedded systemSound pressureTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the automotive industry becomes increasingly competitive, parts manufacturers are under extreme pressure to improve the quality of their parts, while at the same time reducing costs. The method currently used to detect failures in automotive light assemblies after vibration endurance testing involves manual inspection only after the test is completed. An adaptable, reliable and low cost real time monitoring and diagnostic system that would interrupt the testing operation at the first onset of a failure is desired. This paper describes an accelerometer based and a microphone based monitoring system for automotive light assembly failure detection during endurance testing. Preliminary results from these two systems show a significant difference between healthy and faulty fog light assemblies can be detected. This suggests that there is potential to develop these and potentially other measures for use in an adaptable, reliable and low cost real time monitoring and diagnostic system that would interrupt the testing operation at the first onset of a failure.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207