MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W569391 · doi:10.22260/isarc2013/0039

Image-Based Change Detection for Bridge Inspection

2013· article· en· W569391 on OpenAlexafffund
R.S. Adhikari, Osama Moselhi, Ashutosh Bagchi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... ISARC · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsChange detectionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionProcess (computing)Background subtractionVisual inspectionBridge (graph theory)Digital imageImage processingImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Pixel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The changes in defects patterns or in element condition index during visual inspection of bridges are primary concerns for inspectors.This paper presents a new approach for change detection of defects in bridges by identifying changes in texture patterns through spectral analysis of digital images.The commonly used method for change detection is image differentiation.This subtraction method requires images to be of same size, scale, and rotation.However, no two images are same in real practices.Thus, image registration is required to align images and to produce change maps.This process is tedious and it is difficult often to achieve a good registered image.But, the change detection task can be readily modeled in frequency domain for texture patterns discrimination and also for quantifying their properties.This paper proposes a novel approach for change detection by transforming digital images into Fourier spectrum.In new coordinate system, 1-D signature functions can be drawn which facilitates easy comparison of textures in different directions.The proposed methodology provides useful tools for comparison of inspection history graphically and quantitatively.In practice, expensive sensors are used to detect subtle change in defect patterns.The proposed method can be used to detect any subtle change in defect patterns using digital images at much lower cost.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... ISARCSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207