MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052100537 · doi:10.1504/ijista.2014.059302

Video event detection for fault monitoring in assembly automation

2014· article· en· W2052100537 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin S. Hughes, Heshan Fernando, Greg Szkilnyk, Brian Surgenor, Michael Greenspan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies and Applications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsDowntimeTestbedComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)Real-time computingFault detection and isolationAutomationFault (geology)Artificial intelligenceSimilarity (geometry)Measure (data warehouse)Computer visionData miningEmbedded systemEngineeringImage (mathematics)Operating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major goal of many manufacturers is to minimise production downtime caused by machine faults and equipment breakdowns. This goal is typically achieved using sensor-based systems that can quickly detect and diagnose machine faults of various types. This paper proposes the use of a video event detection method based on spatiotemporal volumes (STVs) in a fault monitoring application to complement and improve upon existing systems. To detect faults, images are captured using a single camera from several different regions of an assembly machine testbed. The motion is segmented in each image creating binary frames which are stacked to build a STV. Normal operation of the machine is modelled by building a STV from several training sequences. New STVs are compared to the model and classified as either normal or faulty behaviour based on a calculated similarity measure. Test results show that the system is very effective on the data sets collected.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies and ApplicationsSame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207