MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

STRUCTURAL 3D MONITORING USING A NEW SINUSOIDAL FITTING ADJUSTMENT

2016· article· en· W2467344234 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Detchev, Ayman Habib, Derek D. Lichti, Mamdouh El‐Badry

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryResidualComputer scienceFrame rateRange (aeronautics)Mean squared errorFrame (networking)Real-time computingSimulationArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmEngineeringStatisticsMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Digital photogrammetric systems combined with image processing techniques have been used for structural monitoring purposes for more than a decade. For applications requiring sub-millimetre level precision, the use of off-the-shelf DSLR cameras is a suitable choice, especially when the low cost of the involved sensors is a priority. The disadvantage in the use of entry level DSLRs is that there is a trade-off between frame rate and burst rate – a high frame rate is either not available or it cannot be sustained long enough. This problem must be overcome when monitoring a structural element undergoing a dynamic test, where a range of loads are cycled through multiple times a second. In order to estimate deflections during such a scenario, this paper proposes a new least-squares adjustment for sinusoidal fitting. The new technique is capable of processing multiple back-to-back bursts of data within the same adjustment, which synthetically increases the de-facto temporal resolution of the system. The paper describes a beam deformation test done in a structures laboratory. The experimental results were assessed in terms of both their precision and accuracy. The new method increased the effective sampling frequency three-fold, which improved the standard deviations of the estimated parameters with up to two orders of magnitude. A residual RMSE as low as 30 μm was attained, and likewise the RMSE of the computed amplitudes between the photogrammetric system and the control laser transducers was as small as 34 μm.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207