MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023739648 · doi:10.1109/icices.2014.7033989

Fabric quality testing using image processing

2014· article· en· W2023739648 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsAlpha Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeavingTextileArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Computer visionComputer scienceWoven fabricClothingTexture (cosmology)Gabor filterVisual inspectionImage processingFeature extractionImage (mathematics)EngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of this paper is to identify the damaged cloth which may contain defective yarns, colour bleeding, and pores that may be mingled with the good cloth materials at areas such as textile fabric industries, garments, and weaving factories. Automated defect detection for fabrics based on filters is proposed to manage the problem of human visual inspection. The monitoring process is done by a web camera, to capture the details of the cloth. A pre-trained Gabor wavelet network is used to extract the important texture features in the textile fabric. In this defect detection, few specific filters are used to process each frames of the cloth which is being captured by the web camera.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.223 · 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