MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126925420 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2021.3055757

Research on the Influence of Multiple Interference Factors on Infrared Temperature Measurement

2021· article· en· W3126925420 on OpenAlexaff
Dong Pan, Zhaohui Jiang, Xavier Maldague, Weihua Gui

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFoundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInterference (communication)InfraredCompensation (psychology)Temperature measurementObservational errorThermalOpticsMaterials scienceComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsTelecommunicationsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infrared thermal imager is an important means of temperature measurement. However, the measurement results of infrared thermal imagers are easily affected by interference factors, resulting in non-negligible temperature measurement errors, and the infrared thermal imager may be affected by multiple factors at the same time. To research the influence of multiple interference factors on infrared temperature measurement, this paper takes two common interference factors in actual temperature measurement processes, dust and measuring distance, as examples. Firstly, this paper analyzed the influence of dust and measuring distance and carried out the temperature measurement experiments under multi-factor interference and the experiments under single-factor interference respectively. Then, based on nonlinear polynomial regression, a compensation method is proposed to compensate for the measurement errors caused by dust and measuring distance. Results demonstrate that the proposed compensation method can significantly reduce the measurement errors caused by multiple interference factors, which is essential to promote the application of infrared thermal imagers in complex scenes with multiple interferences.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207