A Novel Line-Scan Algorithm for Unsynchronised Dynamic Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In non-destructive inspections today, the size of the sample being examined is often limited to fit within the field of view of the camera being used. When examining larger specimens, multiple image sequences need to be stitched together into one image. Due to uneven illumination, the combined image may have artificial defects. This manuscript provides a solution for performing line-scan measurements from a sample and combining the images to avoid these artificial defects. The proposed algorithm calculates the pixel shift, either through checkerboard detection or by field of view (FOV) calculation, for each image to create the stitched image. This working principle eliminates the need for synchronisation between the motion speed of the object and the frame rate of the camera. The algorithm is tested with several cameras that operate in different wavelengths (ultraviolet (UV), visible near infrared (Vis-NIR) and long-wave infrared (LWIR)), each with the corresponding light sources. Results show that the algorithm is able to achieve subpixel stitching accuracy. The side effects of heterogeneous illumination can be solved using the proposed method.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".