MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162768907 · doi:10.1109/tim.2021.3078538

Drone-Based Ceramic Insulators Condition Monitoring

2021· article· en· W3162768907 on OpenAlexaff
Danial Waleed, S. Mukhopadhyay, Usman Tariq, Ayman El‐Hag

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Inspection Robots
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAmerican University of Sharjah
KeywordsQuadcopterDroneInsulator (electricity)EngineeringOverhead (engineering)Overhead lineCeramicReal-time computingComputer scienceElectrical engineeringSimulationAerospace engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article develops a prototype quadcopter drone-based system for inspection of power-line ceramic insulators. The drone uses its onboard cameras and Raspberry Pi single-board computer to monitor the health condition of outdoor ceramic insulators. The main contribution of this article is the development of a complete quadcopter-based system prototype for overhead power-line ceramic insulators inspection. The system is capable of performing the required computer vision routines for insulator health monitoring, either onboard or on an onshore ground station computer. In the onshore mode of operation, the drone captures images as it flies and simultaneously sends them to the onshore ground station. The developed system is tested in real life on a small-scale model frame, on which insulators are mounted. The results presented in this article show that quadcopter-based insulator inspection can be carried out successfully using both onshore and onboard computer vision techniques, with acceptable quality in terms of precision and computer vision time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations59
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicPower Line Inspection RobotsFrench-language works237,207