Vision-based concrete crack detection technique using cascade features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an existing face detection method using cascade features updated for determining the cracks on concrete surfaces. The main goal of structural health monitoring (SHM) is to safeguard our existing structures from cracks, corrosion, delamination, and spalls due to incessant use of structures. Cracks are the foremost defect that will occur in the structures, and they require quick attention before they lead to structural failure; it is a laborious job to detect the cracks using personnel (visual inspection) practices, which produce highly unreliable results. The results of contact sensor-based crack detection techniques, however, mainly depend on parameters such as temperature, sensitivity, accessibility, etc. Recently there has been high expansion in computer vision (image processing) techniques that facilitate the detection of cracks. In this study, a modified cascade face detection technique based on the Viola-Jones algorithm is proposed to detect cracks in concrete walls. Cascade features calculated from the Viola-Jones algorithm are trained on positive and negative datasets of images with and without cracks. Once training is completed, the Viola-Jones algorithm spots the cracks on test images with bounding boxes drawn around the region of the cracks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".