MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410577751 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2025.111643

Dataset for training neural networks in concrete crack detection: laboratory-classified beam and column images

2025· article· en· W4410577751 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Almeida Del Savio, Ana Luna Torres, Daniel Cárdenas-Salas, Mónica Alejandra Vergara Olivera, Gianella Urday Ibarra

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColumn (typography)Artificial neural networkTraining (meteorology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceBeam (structure)Pattern recognition (psychology)Structural engineeringEngineeringGeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction industry is increasingly incorporating artificial intelligence into processes for the efficiency and accuracy of structural analysis and monitoring. However, obtaining high-quality datasets to train algorithms for detecting concrete cracks in structural components remains challenging, as such cracks normally develop over an extended period under real-world conditions. We introduce a curated dataset of 1,132 manually classified images of concrete cracks in beams and columns. These images were captured in a controlled laboratory environment using a static IP camera and annotated using the LabelImg tool. The dataset includes five object classes representing distinct cracks and failures in beams and columns and corresponding.txt files containing classification and coordinates data. This dataset is designed to facilitate developing and validating of neural network-based computer vision models for automated crack detection. It is a very useful resource for researchers in structural engineering, which enables further developments in automated structural health monitoring and contributes to the overall use of AI in the construction industry.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207