MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558124286 · doi:10.4043/27409-ms

Infrared Image Analysis for Estimation of Ice Load on Structures

2016· article· en· W2558124286 on OpenAlexaff
Azam Fazelpour, S. R. Dehghani, Vlastimil Masek, Yuri S. Muzychka

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrayscaleArtificial intelligenceInfraredComputer visionPixelThresholdingEmissivityComputer scienceBinary imageRemote sensingThermal infraredImage (mathematics)Image processingPattern recognition (psychology)OpticsGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An analysis using infrared and visual images is made to measure the ice thickness of a cylindrical component. The proposed method is useful for ice detection and measurement on structures, even in harsh conditions and low light situations such as night. This type of analysis can fill a gap of knowledge related to ice measurement using both visual and thermal images. Thermal imaging shows differences in the emissivity and temperature of objects. This can help to detect objects and measure the amount of ice accumulated on the objects. Combining the information of visual and thermal images can compensate for their weak points and present better results. Combinations of the color-visual image (CVI), grayscale-visual image (GVI), color-infrared image (CII) and grayscale-infrared image (GII) are used to find the most accurate results. A binary image is acquired using the threshold method based on data collected from infrared and visual images. Using threshold levels removes irrelevant data that come from the background. Common ice pixels detected from both infrared and visual images are considered as the ice area. Thresholding methods cause unwanted gaps and strips in binary images. Morphological algorithms are used to remove these imperfections. The best results are obtained when one of the elements of the combinations is CII. The results of using CVI and GVI are almost the same. The experiments show that this method is reliable and its results are aligned with the real data.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Technology ConferenceSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207