MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408145625 · doi:10.1109/icmla61862.2024.00297

MCMN Deep Learning Model for Precise Microcrack Detection in Various Materials

2024· article· en· W4408145625 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDeep learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damage in metals, composites, and cemented porous solids, in the form of cracks, inclusions, and voids, is a nontrivial problem. Many experimental, numerical, and analytical methods have been proposed in the past, with some recent models deploying neural networks. However, past methods often lack the accuracy and precision needed to identify microcracks. This paper presents the MicroCracksMetaNet50E (MCMN) deep learning model, inspired by Meta's Segment Anything Model (SAM). MCMN is trained with numerical data produced by an advanced mesoscale numerical model for spatial crack detection inside various materials. MicroCracksMetaNet50E achieves an accuracy of 0.867% and a precision of 0.906% in identifying microcracks. The robust performance of MCMN is highlighted, showcasing a notable advancement that its capabilities and propels the field into uncharted territories by expanding oppor-tunities for the comprehensive exploration of additional datasets. The method could be adopted for damage detection in metals and composites in manufacturing as well as structural health monitoring.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207