MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000031647 · doi:10.1061/9780784481653.064

Automated Sewer Pipeline Inspection Using Computer Vision Techniques

2018· article· en· W3000031647 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Moradi, Tarek Zayed, Farzaneh Golkhoo

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2018 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Computer sciencePipeline transportComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringOperating systemMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To facilitate condition assessment in sewer pipeline networks current practice is using the available technologies to visually inspect the internal condition of pipelines. Closed circuit television (CCTV) has been one of the most used methods in North American municipalities in last decades. However, this method requires hours of videos to be inspected by certified inspectors which is time consuming, labor intensive, and error prone. The main objective of this research is to propose an automated approach for inspection and condition assessment of sewer pipelines using computer vision techniques. This research includes two main part: identifying region of interest (ROI) in sewer inspection videos which are most likely to contain sewer defects, and defect detection and classification among the identified anomalous frames. The ROI detection model employs proportional data modeling using hidden Markov models (HMM) to extract abnormal frames from sewer CCTV videos. In the next step, a deep learning approach using convolutional neural networks (CNN) is proposed to detect the defects and classify them. The presented algorithm has been developed and tested using the data sets from CCTV inspection reports.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2018Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207