MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008796844 · doi:10.4271/2014-01-9003

A New Method for Monitoring Gears Surface Failures Using Enhanced Image Registration Approach

2014· article· en· W2008796844 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Onsy, Mohamed M. Fouad, Brian Shaw, Richard M. Dansereau

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Aerospace · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceImage registrationTransmission (telecommunications)Image (mathematics)Image processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">In this paper, we present an image registration approach to cope with inter-image illumination changes of arbitrary shape in order to monitor the development of micro-pitting in transmission gears. Traditional image registration approaches do not typically account for inter-image illumination variations that negatively affect the geometric registration precision. Given a set of captured images of gear surface degradation with different exposure times and geometric deformations, the correlation between the resulting aligned images is compared to a reference one. The presented image registration approach is used with an online health monitoring system involving the analysis of vibration, acoustic emission and oil debris to follow the development of micro-pitting in transmission gears. The proposed monitoring system achieves more registration precision compared to competing systems. This paper experimentally validates the system's capabilities to detect early gear defects and reliably identify the gradual development of micro-pitting in gears, so that it could be used in predictive health monitoring (PHM) systems and overcome the disadvantages of the most commonly used methods, such as gear flank profile scanning, replica sample analysis and conventional image analysis.</div></div>

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of AerospaceSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207