MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049479249 · doi:10.1109/icra.2014.6907582

Viewpoint selection for vision systems in industrial inspection

2014· article· en· W2049479249 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsViewpointsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionProcess (computing)Greedy algorithmGraphTask (project management)Machine visionObject (grammar)Visual inspectionSelection (genetic algorithm)CADEngineering drawingAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An automatic method for solving the problem of view planning in high-resolution industrial inspection is presented. The method's goal is to maximize the visual coverage, and to minimize the number of cameras used for inspection. Using a CAD model of the object of interest, we define the scene-points and the viewpoints, with the later being the solution space. The problem formulation accurately encapsulates all the vision- and task-related requirements of the design process for inspection systems. We use a graph-based approach to formulate a solution for the problem. The solution is implemented as a greedy algorithm, and the method is validated through experiments.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207