MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207066168 · doi:10.3390/s22030830

Stretching Method-Based Damage Detection Using Neural Networks

2022· article· en· W4207066168 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanouil Daskalakis, Christos G. Panagiotopoulos, Chrysoula Tsogka

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsVancouver Community College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkNatural (archaeology)Computer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Natural frequencyPixelBiological systemData miningRemote sensingAcousticsReal-time computingPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceGeologyPhysicsVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present in this paper a framework for damage detection and localization using neural networks. The data we use to train the network are m×d pixel images consisting of measurements of the relative variations of m natural frequencies of the structure under monitoring over a period of d-days. To measure the relative variations of the natural frequencies, we use the stretching method, which allows us to obtain reliable measurements amidst fluctuations induced by environmental factors such as temperature variations. We show that even by monitoring a single natural frequency over a few days, accurate damage detection can be achieved. The accuracy for damage detection significantly improves when a small number of natural frequencies is monitored instead of a single one. More importantly, monitoring multiple natural frequencies allows for damage localization provided that the network can be trained for both healthy and damaged scenarios. This is feasible under the assumption that damage occurs at a finite number of damage-prone locations. Several results obtained with numerically simulated data illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207