MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126438604 · doi:10.1109/have.2009.5356115

Fiber-level structure recognition of woven textile

2009· article· en· W2126438604 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Wang, Nicolas D. Georganas, Emil M. Petriu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYarnArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationCluster analysisComputer scienceWoven fabricComputer visionTextileFuzzy logicImage segmentationGray levelInvariant (physics)Texture (cosmology)MathematicsImage (mathematics)EngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a novel automatic method for woven textile structure recognition in fiber-level. This method is based on digital image analysis techniques. It allows automatic weft yarn and warp yarn crossed-area segmentation through a spatial domain integral projection approach. Secondly, by applying unsupervised fuzzy c-means clustering on multi-scale direction invariant texture features based on gray level co-occurrence matrix, we can classify detected segments into two clusters. Finally, using a fuzzy rule based analysis on texture orientation features, the yarn crossed-area states are automatically determined. To verify the validity of this method, a number of textile images are used. The samples we choose have different weave types: plain or twill, different fiber types and yarn counts. The recognition results match the actual structure of tested samples. A possible 3D representation of woven structure identified is also shown in this paper.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207