On the use of pulsed thermography signal reconstruction based on linear support vector regression for carbon fiber reinforced polymer inspection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces and evaluates a new approach to reconstruct image sequences acquired during non-destructive testing by pulsed thermography. The proposed method consists of applying two linear support vector regressions to model the evolution of the data from both a spatial and temporal point of view. Each regression vectors will map the data with the number of pixels and the number of frames using convex optimisation. Then the regression vectors are used to predict a more robust representation of the data, thus reconstructing the sequence. The proposed method has been applied to data related to a reference sample of carbon reinforced fibre with known defects. This approach was evaluated on a sequence with severe non-uniform heating and was compared with state-of-the-art methods. Despite being sensitive to non-uniform heating, the proposed method provided a higher CNR score on smaller defects, compared with state-of-the-art methods. For the shallowest defects it shows better performance in term of contrast reconstruction compared to partial least-squares thermography (PLST). It also outperforms principal component thermography (PCT), and thermographic signal reconstruction-PCT (TSR-PCT) for defects located at a depth of 0.6 mm and 0.8 mm below the surface.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it