MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394969816 · doi:10.1117/12.3021984

Towards the development of standards and performance metrics for 3D imaging systems

2024· article· en· W4394969816 on OpenAlexaff
Prem Rachakonda, Kamel Saidi, Marek Franaszek, Wesley Rhodes, Helen Qiao, John Sweetser, Armin Khatoonabadi, D Dechow

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsEmera (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NIST and multiple industrial stakeholders are leading and supporting multiple efforts to develop standards for 3D imaging systems for manufacturing automation applications. Many manufacturers specify the performance of their sensors in non-standard ways and offer no method to verify those parameters independently. The standards are being developed under the auspices of the ASTM E57 committee on 3D Imaging Systems. They are meant to produce a) standards for measuring the performance of 3D imaging systems, b) standards for bin-picking vision systems, and c) guidelines for the selection of 3D imaging systems. This work presents the status of four work items.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207