MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

VISION-BASED APPROACHES FOR QUANTIFYING CRACKS IN CONCRETE STRUCTURES

2020· article· en· W3049654278 on OpenAlexaff
Parnia Shokri, Mozhdeh Shahbazi, Derek D. Lichti, John Nielsen

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsCentre de Géomatique du QuébecUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceCalibrationOrientation (vector space)PixelWorkflowSegmentationMatching (statistics)Plane (geometry)Camera resectioningMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In this paper, a combination of photogrammetric, computer-vision, and deep-learning approaches are proposed for accurate detection and quantification of cracks from the images of concrete structures. In particular, a semantic segmentation approach using UNet is applied, which is trained on a customized dataset of real-world images. Then, two photogrammetric methods are assessed for reconstructing the full figure of the cracks from stereo images. One approach is based on detecting the dominant structural plane surrounding the crack and projecting the crack pixels to this 3D plane. The second approach is based on matching the crack pixels across two images. To be able to perform the 3D reconstructions accurately, a rigorous calibration of the intrinsic calibration parameters of the cameras is performed. The relative orientation parameters between the stereo cameras are also determined in the calibration procedure. Extensive experiments are performed to evaluate each phase of this detection-and-quantification workflow. In general, cracks can be detected with an average precision of 87.48% and recall of 87.45%. They can be reconstructed in 3D with an accuracy as high as 0.05 mm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207