MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386642634 · doi:10.1061/jpsea2.pseng-1444

Automatic Detection and Classification of Underground Objects in Ground Penetrating Radar Images Using Machine Learning

2023· article· en· W4386642634 on OpenAlexaff
Leila Carolina Martoni Amaral, Aditya Roshan, Alireza Bayat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarArtificial intelligenceRadarRemote sensingRadar imagingComputer scienceComputer visionSupport vector machineGeologyMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is widely used in subsurface utility mapping. It is a nondestructive tool that has gained popularity in supporting underground drilling projects such as horizontal directional drilling (HDD). Even with the benefits including equipment portability, low cost, and high versatility in locating underground objects, GPR has a drawback of the time spent and expertise needed in data interpretation. Recent researchers have shown success in utilizing machine learning (ML) algorithms in GPR images for the automatic detection of underground objects. However, due to the lack of availability of labeled GPR datasets, most of these algorithms used synthetic data. This study presents the application of the state-of-the-art You Only Look Once (YOLO) v5 algorithm to detect underground objects using GPR images. A GPR dataset was prepared by collecting GPR images in a laboratory setup. For this purpose, a commercially available 2GHz high-frequency GPR antenna was used, and a dataset was collected with images of metal and PVC pipes, air and water voids, and boulders. The YOLOv5 algorithm was trained with a dataset that successfully detected and classified underground objects to their respective classes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and PracticeSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207