A Method of Defect Depth Estimation for Simulated Infrared Thermography Data with Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infrared thermography has already been proven to be a significant method in non-destructive evaluation since it gives information with immediacy, rapidity, and low cost. However, the thorniest issue for the wider application of IRT is quantification. In this work, we proposed a specific depth quantifying technique by employing the Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs) in composite material samples via pulsed thermography (PT). Finite Element Method (FEM) modeling provides the economic examination of the response pulsed thermography. In this work, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) specimens embedded with flat bottom holes are stimulated by a FEM modeling (COMSOL) with precisely controlled depth and geometrics of the defects. The GRU model automatically quantified the depth of defects presented in the stimulated CFRP material. The proposed method evaluated the accuracy and performance of synthetic CFRP data from FEM for defect depth predictions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".