MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fuzzy machine vision based clip detection

2012· article· en· W2059221709 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLIPSComputer scienceTruckFuzzy logicArtificial intelligenceRobustness (evolution)Machine visionAutomotive industryComputer visionMachine learningData miningAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes the use of an objective fuzzy approach for fast and accurate vision‐based inspection. An inspection problem faced by a Canadian automotive parts manufacturer is being used as a case study. The problem is related to a vision system that is being operated to confirm the placement of metal fastening clips on a structural member that supports a truck dash panel. The manufacturer was interested in identifying the presence or absence of metal clips inserted by a robot arm. It took the manufacturer over 8 months to tune its commercial machine vision system to detect missing clips and yet the accuracy and efficiency of the system are being questioned. Five different universities across Canada have been working in parallel on this problem over a time span of 2 years. To this end, we developed an efficient fuzzy model after trying various statistical approaches. The proposed model properly identifies all the images in a database containing 1910 images. The robustness of the fuzzy model is confirmed by its strong performance on the entire database.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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