MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029105099 · doi:10.4018/ijmfmp.2014010104

Surface Roughness Estimation of Turned Parts from Optical Image Measurements and Wavelet Decomposition

2014· article· en· W2029105099 on OpenAlexaff
René Kamguem, Antoine Tahan, Victor Songméné

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Materials Forming and Machining Processes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface roughnessMachiningSurface finishArtificial neural networkComputer scienceWavelet transformA priori and a posterioriMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer visionWaveletMaterials scienceEngineering drawingEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surface roughness is very significant information required for product quality on the field of mechanical engineering and manufacturing, especially in aeronautic. Its measurement must therefore be conducted with care. In this work, a measuring method of the surface roughness based on machine vision was studied. The authors' use algorithms to evaluate new discriminatory features thereby than the statistical characteristics using the coefficients of the wavelet transform and used to estimate the roughness parameters. This vision system allows measuring simultaneously several parameters of the roughness at the same time, order to meet for the desired surface function used. The results were validated on three different families of materials: aluminum, cast iron and brass. The impact of material on the quality of the results was analyzed, leading to the development of multi-materials. The study had shown that several roughness parameters can be estimated using only features extracted from the image and a neural network without a priori knowledge of the machining parameters.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

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 head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Materials Forming and Machining ProcessesSame topicSurface Roughness and Optical MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207