MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Curvature Monitoring of Beams Using Digital Image Correlation

2013· article· en· W2050887420 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Dutton, W. Andy Take, Neil A. Hoult

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bridge Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital image correlationStrain gaugeCurvatureBeam (structure)Measure (data warehouse)Gauge (firearms)Structural engineeringOpticsAcousticsMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematicsGeometryEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method for measuring longitudinal strains with the height at a section, and thus the curvature, using a technique based on digital image correlation (DIC), is presented. The background to this technique is introduced as well as previous work in this area. The accuracy of DIC under ideal conditions is established using artificially generated images that represent beams with various curvatures. The practical accuracy of DIC is established by comparing the strains measured using DIC to those predicted by elastic theory and measured using strain gauges for a steel beam. The correlation between these results is found to be excellent. DIC is then used to measure curvatures in RC beams and these results are compared with analytically predicted results with good agreement. The choice of an appropriate gauge length for RC is discussed and is shown to be one of the significant advantages of using DIC as opposed to strain gauges in both laboratory testing and field monitoring of bridge structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations51
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bridge EngineeringSame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207