Thermal imaging dataset from composite material academic samples inspected by pulsed thermography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a thermal imaging dataset from composite material samples (carbon and glass fiber reinforced plastic) that were inspected by pulsed thermography with the goal of detecting and characterizing subsurface defective zones (Teflon inserts representing delaminations between plies). The pulsed thermography experiment was applied to 6 academic plates (inspected from both sides) all having the dimensions of 300 mm x 300 mm x 2 mm and same distribution of defects but made of different materials: three plates on carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) and three plates made on glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) specimens with three different geometries: planar, curved and trapezoidal. Each plate contains 25 inserts having length/depth ratios between 1.7 and 75. Two FX60 BALCAR photographic flashes (6.2 kJ per flash) were used to generate the heat pulse (2 ms duration), an X6900 FLIR infrared camera using ResearchIR software to record the thermal images and a custom-built software/control unit to synchronize data recording with pulse generation. Finally, the dataset proposed consists of 12 sequences of approximately 2000 images of 512 × 512 pixels each.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".