MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328253698 · doi:10.1515/jag-2015-0023

Measurement of Deflection in Concrete Beams During Fatigue Loading Test Using the Microsoft Kinect 2.0

2016· article· en· W2328253698 on OpenAlexaff
Hervé Lahamy, Derek D. Lichti, Jeremy Steward, Mamdouh El‐Badry, Mohammad Moravvej

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Geodesy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeflection (physics)Beam (structure)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceOpticsAcousticsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study focuses on 3 Hz fatigue load testing of a reinforced concrete beam in laboratory conditions. Three-dimensional (3D) image time series of the beam’s top surface were captured with the Microsoft time-of-flight Kinect 2.0 sensor. To estimate the beam deflection, the imagery was first segmented to extract the top surface of the beam. The centre line was then modeled using third-order B-splines. The deflection of the beam as a function of time was estimated from the modeled centre line and, following past practice, also at several witness plates attached to the side of the beam. Subsequent correlation of the peak displacement with the applied loading cycles permitted estimation of fatigue in the beam. The accuracy of the deflections was evaluated by comparison with the measurements obtained using a Keyence LK-G407 laser displacement sensors. The results indicate that the deflections can be recovered with sub-millimetre accuracy using the centreline profile modelling method.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.224
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GeodesySame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207