MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943984451 · doi:10.3390/en12091735

Image Recognition of Coal and Coal Gangue Using a Convolutional Neural Network and Transfer Learning

2019· article· en· W2943984451 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanyuan Pu, Derek B. Apel, Alicja Szmigiel, Jie Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkTransfer of learningComputer scienceWorkflowCoalArtificial intelligenceGangueDeep learningProcess (computing)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionEngineeringDatabaseWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing and distinguishing coal and gangue are essential in engineering, such as in coal-fired power plants. This paper employed a convolutional neural network (CNN) to recognize coal and gangue images and help segregate coal and gangue. A typical workflow for CNN image recognition is presented as well as a strategy for updating the model parameters. Based on a powerful trained image recognition model, VGG16, the idea of transfer learning was introduced to build a custom CNN model to solve the problems of massive trainable parameters and limited computing power linked to the building of a brand-new model from scratch. Two hundred and forty coal and gangue images were collected in a database, including 100 training images and 20 validation images for each material. A recognition accuracy of 82.5% was obtained for the validation images, which demonstrated a decent performance of our model. According to the analysis of parameter updating in the training process, a principal constraint for obtaining a higher recognition accuracy mainly resided in a shortage of training samples. This model was also used to identify photos from a washing plant stockpiles, which verified its capability of dealing with field pictures. CNN combined with the transfer learning method we used can provide fast and robust coal/gangue distinction that does not require harsh data support and equipment support. This method will exhibit brighter prospects in engineering if the target image database (as with the coal and gangue images in this study) can be further enlarged.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations146
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207