On the use of pulsed thermography signal reconstruction based on linear support vector regression for carbon fiber reinforced polymer inspection
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".