MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019703315 · doi:10.1117/12.2555553

Defects detection in infrared thermography by deep learning algorithm

2020· article· en· W3019703315 on OpenAlexaff
Qiang Fang, Ba Diep Nguyen, Clemente Ibarra‐Castanedo, Yu-Xia Duan, Xavier Maldague

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermographyRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceObject detectionField (mathematics)Machine learningArtificial neural networkDeep neural networksInfraredComputer visionAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-destructive Evaluation (NDE) is a field that is used to identify all kinds of structural damage in an object of interest without resulting in any permanent damage or modification to the object. This field has been intensively investigated for many years. Among several research topics in this field, the supervised defect detection methods are among the most innovative and challenging. In recent years, the deep learning field of artificial intelligence has made remarkable progress in image processing applications. Deep learning has shown its ability to overcome most of the disadvantages suffered by previous existing approaches in a great number of applications. In this paper, we propose a deep learning architecture based on infrared thermography inspection intended to automatically identify defects (including internal and invisible cracks, delamination, etc.) efficiently and accurately. We studied the proposed deep learning algorithms to achieve automatic defect detection and precise localization (subsurface defects case) from different thermal image sequences. To evaluate the efficiency and robustness of the proposed methodology, specimens containing artificial defects were selected for experimental configuration.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207