MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063680016 · doi:10.1115/detc2011-48493

Vision Based Fault Detection of Automated Assembly Equipment

2011· article· en· W2063680016 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine visionComputer scienceFault detection and isolationComponent (thermodynamics)Fault (geology)Artificial intelligenceEmbedded systemReal-time computingActuator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine faults and breakdowns are a concern for the manufacturing industry. Automated assembly machines typically employ many different types of sensors to monitor machine health and feedback faults to a central controller for review by a technician or engineer. This paper describes progress with a project whose goal is to examine the effectiveness of using machine vision to detect ‘visually cued’ faults in automated assembly equipment. Tests were conducted on a laboratory scale conveyor apparatus that assembles a simple 3-part component. The machine vision system consisted of several conventional webcams and image processing in LabVIEW. Preliminary results demonstrated that the machine vision system could identify faults such as part jams and feeder jams; however the overall effectiveness was limited as this technique can only detect faults known prior to creating the vision system. Future work to create a more robust system is currently underway.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.217 · 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