MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189648828 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2020-0246

Crack grid detection and calculation based on convolutional neural network

2021· article· en· W3189648828 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Liyang Xiao, Wei Li, Ju Huyan, Zhaoyun Sun, Susan Tighe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkGridComputer scienceThresholdingArtificial intelligenceSegmentationArtificial neural networkPixelGrid method multiplicationComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pavement crack detection has always been an important problem in pavement maintenance. With rapid development in computer vision technology, crack detection using deep learning has become one of the major tasks in automatic pavement condition detection and assessment. This paper aims to develop a method of crack grid detection based on convolutional neural network. First, an image denoising operation is conducted to improve image quality. Next, the processed images are divided into grids of different scales (10 × 10, 20 × 20, 30 × 30), and each grid is fed into a convolutional neural network for detection. The pieces of the grids with cracks are marked and then returned to the original images. Finally, on the basis of the detection results, threshold segmentation is performed only on the marked grids. Information about the crack parameters is obtained via pixel scanning and calculation, which realizes complete crack detection. The experimental results show that 30 × 30 grids perform the best with the accuracy value of 97.33%. The advantage of automatic crack grid detection is that it can avoid fracture phenomenon in crack identification and ensure the integrity of cracks. Thresholding smaller grids allows better combinations of the differences between objects and backgrounds, which makes segmentation results more accurate.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207