MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112868428 · doi:10.1109/tim.2008.924933

A Data-Fusion Scheme for Quantitative Image Analysis by Using Locally Weighted Regression and Dempster–Shafer Theory

2008· article· en· W2112868428 on OpenAlexaff
Zheng Liu, David S. Forsyth, Mir Saeed Safizadeh, A. Fahr

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuse (electrical)Sensor fusionDempster–Shafer theoryPairwise comparisonPossibility theoryRegression analysisRegressionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsRepresentation (politics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceData miningAlgorithmStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dempster-Shafer (DS) theory provides a solution to fuse multisensor data, which are presented in a hypothesis space comprising mutually exclusive and exhaustive propositions and their unions. The fusion result is a description of the proposition with the values of support, plausibility, and uncertainty interval. However, in some applications, numerical values of a continuous function, instead of a Boolean value or a proposition, are expected. In this paper, a scheme based on DS reasoning and locally weighted regression is proposed to fuse the data obtained from the nondestructive inspections of aircraft lap joints for the estimation of the remaining thickness. The proposed approach uses a pairwise regression that is optimized by the DS method when multiple inputs are involved. The scheme is evaluated with the experiments on fusing conventional eddy current and pulsed eddy current data obtained from aircraft lap joint structures for the characterization of hidden corrosion.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207