MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inkjet printer ink drop feature detection based on machine vision

2024· article· en· W4403061186 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jing Wang, Jianbin Xiong, Qi Wang, Jianxiang Yang, Xiangjun Dong, Qiong Liang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsInkwellComputer scienceDrop (telecommunication)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceMachine visionFeature (linguistics)Drop outComputer graphics (images)Speech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous inkjet printer is an indispensable equipment in product life cycle traceability management. In order to ensure the quality of printing, it is necessary to analyze the changes of ink droplets in the process of spraying. Firstly, an inkdrop detection system based on a telecentric industrial camera was established to collect inkjet printer images under 150, 170 and 200 pressure conditions. Secondly, the ink drops are preprocessed to remove noise and refine the edge of the ink drop shape, and then the ink drop filling images under various edge detection operators are compared to obtain the best ink drop filling image and contour texture image. Finally, the characteristic parameters such as circularity, complexity, width to length ratio and eccentricity of the ink drop were extracted. The experimental results demonstrate that the morphological changes of ink droplets during the injection process can be comprehended through analysis of the variation curves of characteristic parameters under different pressure conditions, enabling detection of adhesion, trailing, and satellite ink droplets. The research results have important guiding significance for improving the printing quality of continuous inkjet printer.

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 score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionFrench-language works237,207