A model-based approach for statistical assessment of detection and localization performance of guided wave–based imaging techniques
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims at providing a framework for assessing the detection and localization performance of guided wave–based structural health monitoring imaging systems. The assessment exploits a damage identification metric providing a diagnostic of the structure from an image of the scatterers generated by the system, allowing detection, localization, and size estimation of the damage. Statistical probability of detection and probability of localization curves are produced based on values of the damage identification metric for several damage sizes and positions. Instead of relying on arduous measurements on a significant number of structures instrumented in the same way, a model-based approach is considered in this article for estimating probability of detection and probability of localization curves numerically. This approach is first illustrated in a simplistic model, which allows characterizing the robustness of the structural health monitoring system for various levels of noise in test signals. An experimental test case using a more realistic case with an artificial damage is then considered for validating the approach. A good agreement between experimental and numerical values of the damage identification metric and derived probability of detection and probability of localization curves is observed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it