Analysis of signal processing techniques in pulsed thermography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulsed Thermography (PT) is one of the most widely used approaches for the inspection of composites materials, being its main attraction the deployment in transient regime. However, due to the physical phenomena involved during the inspection, the signals acquired by the infrared camera are nearly always affected by external reflections and local emissivity variations. Furthermore, non-uniform heating at the surface and thermal losses at the edges of the material also represent constraints in the detection capability. For this reason, the thermographics signals should be processed in order to improve – qualitatively and quantitatively – the quality of the thermal images. Signal processing constitutes an important step in the chain of thermal image analysis, especially when defects characterization is required. Several of the signals processing techniques employed nowadays are based on the one-dimensional solution of Fourier’s law of heat conduction. This investigation brings into discussion the three-most used techniques based on the 1D Fourier’s law: Thermographic Signal Reconstruction (TSR), Differential Absolute Contrast (DAC) and Pulsed Phase Thermography (PPT), applied on carbon fiber laminated composites. It is of special interest to determine the detection capabilities of each technique, allowing in this way more reliable results when performing an inspection by PT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".