Development of Machine Vision to Increase the Level of Automation in Indonesia Electronic Component Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human involvement in the assembly part manufacturing process is still relatively high. However, automation solutions are not flexible enough to be applied to manufacturing systems. It is essential to evaluate each work activity so that automation can be implemented effectively. We developed an automatic vision inspection using machine vision. The level of automation (LoA) in the company increases, and the impact caused by process failures on manual systems can be eliminated during inspection activities. The automation level increase in the inspection area is described and analyzed using the Hierarchy Task Analysis (HTA). Inspection data process activity and quality data are collected to determine the CCD camera selection, lamp selection, and lens selection. Three quality objectives, such as geometric quality, surface quality, and structural quality, are identified automatically using machine vision. Furthermore, after applying machine vision, an analysis of current LoA conditions and future LoA conditions is carried out. The results showed that the application of machine vision could increase the Level of Automation in the product inspection activity by 81.8%. There is a strong correlation (R = 0.924) between manual measurements carried out by operators and machine vision.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".