MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972248698 · doi:10.13073/fpj-d-19-00008

Automatic Knot Detection in Coarse-Resolution Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images of Softwood Logs

2019· article· en· W2972248698 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Products Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)SoftwoodPosition (finance)High resolutionTomographyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeologyComputer scienceMaterials scienceOpticsRemote sensingPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanning of sawmill logs is associated with costly and complex machines. An alternative scanning solution was developed, but its data have not been evaluated regarding detection of internal features. In this exploratory study, a knot detection algorithm was applied to images of four logs to evaluate its performance in terms of knot position and size. The results were a detection rate of 67 percent, accurate position, and inaccurate size. Although the sample size was small, it was concluded that automatic knot detection in coarse resolution CT images of softwoods is feasible, albeit for knots of sufficient size.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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