MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386786986 · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1002466

Depth Learning Methods For Bridges Inspection Using UAV

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386786986 on OpenAlex
Hicham Sekkati, Jean‐François Lapointe

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntechOpen eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBridge (graph theory)Artificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is investigating learning methods using depth as a cue measurement that can be used for bridge inspection. We investigate learning methods based on mono, stereo, and multiview image input and discuss the constraints that allow some methods to perform better than others in various scenarios. We go over the state-of-the-art deep learning methods, including supervised and unsupervised methods. These methods will be compared and evaluated, based on constraints, performance, and accuracy, and how top methods should be selected for each scenario. The same database should be used for fair comparison between all methods ensuring that evaluations are unbiased, replicable, and meaningful.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.304 · 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