MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897387305 · doi:10.1121/1.5067480

Deflectometry, a full field slope measurement technique: General perspectives and application to loading identification using the virtual fields method

2018· article· en· W2897387305 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Robin, Patrick O’Donoughue, Alain Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital image correlationComputer scienceOpticsAcousticsTransient (computer programming)VibrationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of photographic techniques to quickly record high volumes of scientific data has been understood since the early 1900s. It is only following the advent of digital imaging and data processing systems that so-called full-field optical measurement techniques became sufficiently reliable for performing high spatial density structural vibration measurements. In particular, the deflectometry technique directly provides a spatially and temporally resolved measurement of slope fields on plane structures using a single high-speed camera. The presentation first demonstrates the principles of this technique and explores some direct applications of such full-field measurements. The advantages and drawbacks of deflectometry are compared with other optical techniques like digital image correlation or scanning laser Doppler vibrometry. A key aspect of several engineering domains consists in the identification of dynamic loads acting on structures by inverse methods. It is shown that coupling deflectometry measurements with the virtual fields method enable the reconstruction of stationary and transient excitations without any specific regularization. Experimental reconstruction results on an aluminum panel are presented for two different transient mechanical loadings: instrumented impact hammer and impacting metal marbles (multiple unknown excitations). Finally, the identification of random excitations is considered using a plate and a membrane.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207