An Integrated Framework for Image Acquisition, Processing, and Analysis Procedures for Automated Damage Evaluation of Concrete Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete surface cracks serve as early indicators of potential structural threats. Visual inspection, a commonly used and versatile concrete condition assessment technique, is employed to assess concrete degradation by observing signs of damage on the surface level. However, the method tends to be qualitative and needs to be more comprehensive in providing accurate information regarding the extent of damage and its evolution, notwithstanding its time-consuming and environment-sensitive nature. As such, the integration of image analysis techniques with artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly proven efficient as a tool to capture damage signs on concrete surfaces. However, to improve the performance of automated crack detection, it is imperative to intensively train a machine learning model, and questions remain regarding the required image quality and image collection methodology needed to ensure the model's accuracy and reliability in damage quantitative analysis. This study aims to establish a procedure for image acquisition and processing through the application of an image-based measurement approach to explore the capabilities of concrete surface damage diagnosis. Digitizing crack intensity measurements were found to be feasible; however, larger datasets are required. Due to the anisotropic behavior of the damage, the model's ability to capture crack directionality was developed, presenting no statistically significant differences between the observed and predicted values used in this study with correlation coefficients of 0.79 and 0.82.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".