MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109073894 · doi:10.1109/robot.2002.1013616

Automated inspection system using range data

2003· article· en· W2109073894 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 institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceRange (aeronautics)Process (computing)Noise (video)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceDispersion (optics)Computer visionAutomated X-ray inspectionCADEngineering drawingEngineeringImage processingOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an automated inspection system of manufactured parts using a cloud of 3D measured points of a part provided by a range sensor, and its CAD model. Inspection consists in verifying the accuracy of a part related to a given set of tolerances. It is thus necessary that the 3D measurements be accurate. In the 3D capture of a part, several sources of error can alter the measured values. So, we have to find and model the most influential parameters affecting the accuracy of the range sensor in the digitalization process. This model is used to produce a sensing plan to acquire accurately the geometry of a part. By using the noise model, we introduce a dispersion value for each 3D point acquired. This value of dispersion is shown as a weight factor in the inspection results.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.200 · 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