MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079801539 · doi:10.1117/12.525768

Smart laser profiler

2004· article· de· W2079801539 on OpenAlexaff
F. Martin, John P. Laurent

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsInstitut National d'Optique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceModular designProjectorComputer hardwareDigital signal processingSoftwareLaserElectronicsEmbedded systemKey (lock)Electrical engineeringArtificial intelligenceOpticsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to meet the needs of many diverse industrial 3D inspection tasks, INO has developed a new concept for the design of a smart and modular 3D laser profiler. This stand-alone sensor which we call Smart Laser Profiler (SLP) is composed of a laser line projector, collection optics, a high frame rate camera and a digital signal processor (DSP). The on-board DSP is the key to this technology. The SLP sensor has been designed to be both compact and rugged and it is enclosed in a water resistant NEMA 4 class housing that is easy to install on a production line. The Smart Laser Profiler has several preprogrammed functions on the DSP that implement basic shape analysis algorithms like volume measurement and shape conformance. For more complex shape analysis, the sensor can transfer the raw 3D profiles to a PC through a high-speed communication link. The present article will describe both the unique hardware, electronics and optical architecture of the sensor and the software tools that were developed.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicSurface Roughness and Optical MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207