MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791574238 · doi:10.1177/1475921718757459

Fully automated vision-based loosened bolt detection using the Viola–Jones algorithm

2018· article· en· W2791574238 on OpenAlexaff
Lovedeep Ramana, Wooram Choi, Young‐Jin Cha

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Health Monitoring · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceGRASPComputer scienceComputer visionSupport vector machineDecision boundaryMachine visionCompensation (psychology)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many damage detection methods that use data obtained from contact sensors physically attached to structures have been developed. However, damage-sensitive features such as the modal properties of steel and reinforced concrete are sensitive to environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity. These uncertainties are difficult to address with a regression model or any other temperature compensation method, and these uncertainties are the primary causes of false alarms. A vision-based remote sensing system can be an option for addressing some of the challenges inherent in traditional sensing systems because it provides information about structural conditions. Using bolted connections is a common engineering practice, but very few vision-based techniques have been developed for loosened bolt detection. Thus, this article proposes a fully automated vision-based method for detecting loosened civil structural bolts using the Viola–Jones algorithm and support vector machines. Images of bolt connections for training were taken with a smartphone camera. The Viola–Jones algorithm was trained on two datasets of images with and without bolts to localize all the bolts in the images. The localized bolts were automatically cropped and binarized to calculate the bolt head dimensions and the exposed shank length. The calculated features were fed into a support vector machine to generate a decision boundary separating loosened and tight bolts. We tested our method on images taken with a digital single-lens reflex camera.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations176
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructural Health MonitoringSame topicImage and Object Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207