MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388486813 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-cljn3

Keeping an “eye” on the experiment: computer vision for real-time monitoring and control

2023· preprint· en· W4388486813 on OpenAlexaff
Rama El-khawaldeh, Mason Guy, Finn Bork, Nina Taherimakhsousi, Kris Jones, Joel M. Hawkins, Lu Han, Robert Pritchard, Sébastien Monfette, Jason E. Hein

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPfizer
KeywordsComputer scienceAutomationSoftwareVisualizationData acquisitionWorkflowInstrument controlData collectionReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceComputer hardwareEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a generalizable computer vision (CV) and machine learning model that is used for automated real-time monitoring and control of a diverse array of workup processes. Our system simultaneously monitors multiple physical parameters (e.g., liquid level, homogeneity, turbidity, solid, residue, and color), offering a method for rapid data acquisition and deeper analysis from multiple visual cues. We demonstrate a single platform (consisting of CV, machine learning, real-time monitoring techniques, and flexible hardware) to monitor and control vision-based experimental techniques, including solvent exchange distillation, antisolvent crystallization, evaporative crystallization, cooling crystallization, solid ̶ liquid mixing, and liquid ̶ liquid extraction. Both qualitative (video capturing) and quantitative data (parameters measurement) were obtained which provided a method for data cross-validation. Our CV model's ease of use, generalizability, and non-invasiveness make it an appealing complementary option to in situ and real-time analytical monitoring tools and mathematical modeling. Additionally, our platform is integrated with Mettler-Toledo’s iControl software, which acts as a centralized system for real-time data collection, visualization, and storage. With consistent data representation and infrastructure, we were able to efficiently transfer the technology and reproduce results between different labs. This ability to easily monitor and respond to the dynamic situational changes of the experiments is pivotal to enabling future flexible automation workflows.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207