MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597881733 · doi:10.15353/vsnl.v2i1.94

Road Defect Detection in Street View Images using Texture Descriptors and Contour Maps

2016· article· en· W2597881733 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David Abou Chacra, Henry A. Leopold, Jeremy Pinto, Norman Lunscher, Georges Younes, John Zelek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePlan (archaeology)Support vector machineTexture (cosmology)Contour lineComputer visionQuality (philosophy)Pattern recognition (psychology)Transport engineeringCartographyGeographyEngineeringImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Road quality assessment is a crucial part in municipalities’ workto maintain their infrastructure, plan upgrades, and manage theirbudgets. Properly maintaining this infrastructure relies heavily onconsistently monitoring its condition and deterioration over time.This can be a challenge, especially in larger towns and cities wherethere is a lot of city property to keep an eye on. We review roadquality assessment methods currently employed, and then describeour novel algorithm aimed at identifying distressed road regionsfrom street view images and pinpointing cracks within them. Wepredict distressed regions by computing Fisher vectors on localSIFT descriptors and classifying them with an SVM trained to distinguishbetween road qualities. We follow this step with a comparisonto a weighed contour map within these distressed regionsto identify exact crack and defect locations, and use the contourweights to predict the crack severity. Promising results are obtainedon our manually annotated dataset, which indicate the viability ofusing this cost-effective system to perform road quality assessmentat a municipal level.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging SystemsSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207