MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063864147 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2008.4517775

Computing oil sand particle size distribution by snake-PCA algorithm

2008· article· en· W2063864147 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

VenueProceedings of the ... IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationDiscriminative modelArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceComputationAutomationPoint distribution modelAlgorithmComputer visionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important measure in various stages of oil sand mining is particle size distribution (PSD) of oil sand particles. Currently PSD is found by time consuming manual inspection. An effective automation of PSD computation can play a significant role in improving the mining process. Toward this goal we propose an algorithm (snake-PCA) to detect oil sands from conveyor belt images, which pose considerable challenges to automated analysis. The novelty in snake-PCA is as follows. First, snake-PCA evolves a number of snakes based on a novel variation of gradient vector flow requiring only a point as initialization. Oil sand is then detected by applying a threshold on PCA reconstruction error of a novel pattern image formed on each evolved snake. We show the discriminative property of the proposed pattern image here. Also, our detection experiments with snake-PCA produce a PSD matching well with a manually found PSD.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.222 · 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