MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2352827293

Defects segmentation for wood floor based on image fusion method

2014· article· en· W2352827293 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

VenueDianji yu kongzhi xuebao · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionSegmentationImage stitchingImage fusionImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceMargin (machine learning)MathematicsImage (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surface defects of wood floor directly influence its quality and sorting levels. To solve the problem of slow speed and low accuracy of defects segmentation methods,a fast visual sorting system was designed and a novel segmenting method based on image fusion was proposed. R component image was extracted first and scaling methods were applied to the image. Defects were rapidly located through region growing algorithms in low-dimensional space. Then gradient interpolation method was used to restore the image,and defects were marked to generate the reference image. The wavelet transform was used to identify the margin of the reference image. Finally,dual-threshold growth criterions and taboo table of rapidly located defects were set up to complete the taboo search from the margin of rapidly located region to the outside. The result of the experiment made on 20 sample images with sound knots,dead knots and cracks revealed that the average segmentation time of this method is 13. 21ms,and the accuracy of defect segmentation is 96. 8%.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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