MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391644482 · doi:10.3390/ma17040813

An Integrated Framework for Image Acquisition, Processing, and Analysis Procedures for Automated Damage Evaluation of Concrete Surfaces

2024· article· en· W4391644482 on OpenAlexafffund
Haixu Zhang, Cassandra Trottier, Leandro Sanchez, Anthony Allard

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsEnGlobe (Canada)University of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Image processingArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Data acquisitionReliability engineeringVisual inspectionStructural engineeringComputer visionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207