MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953958484 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2925561

Real-Time Tiny Part Defect Detection System in Manufacturing Using Deep Learning

2019· article· en· W2953958484 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jing Yang, Shaobo Li, Zheng Wang, Guanci Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPetroleum Technology Research CentreGuizhou Science and Technology DepartmentNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceDeep learningArtificial intelligenceReal-time computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We adopted actual intelligent production requirements and proposed a tiny part defect detection method to obtain a stable and accurate real-time tiny part defect detection system and solve the problems of manually setting conveyor speed and industrial camera parameters in defect detection for factory products. First, we considered the important influences of the properties of tiny parts and the environmental parameters of a defect detection system on its stability. Second, we established a correlation model between the detection capability coefficient of the part system and the moving speed of the conveyor. Third, we proposed a defect detection algorithm for tiny parts that are based on a single short detector network (SSD) and deep learning. Finally, we combined an industrial real-time detection platform with the missed detection algorithm for mechanical parts based on intermediate variables to address the problem of missed detections. We used a 0.8 cm darning needle as the experimental object. The system defect detection accuracy was the highest when the speed of the conveyor belt was 7.67 m/min.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations141
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionFrench-language works237,207