MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125824778 · doi:10.1784/cm2025.1e4

Tomography for rotating equipment

2025· article· en· W7125824778 on OpenAlexaff
Odessa Bauer, Steven Knudsen, Michael Lipsett

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Asset Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorCollimated lightImage stitchingFourier transformImage processingFeature (linguistics)Image resolutionArtifact (error)Identification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faults with the internal elements of rotating equipment are notoriously difficult to diagnose while the equipment is in service, and so maintainers often have to rely on indirect assessment based on changes in performance and vibrations. A novel approach to visualizing faults with rotating components is presented based on penetrating electromagnetic radiation and image construction. The basic concept of operations is to generate photons from a collimated source that is relocatable so as to illuminate the rotating component in a piecewise fashion along its radius, preferably but not necessarily parallel to the axis of rotation. Subimage acquisition captures stationary parts through which photons pass as well as part of the rotating component. Registration of rotating sub-images is then done as the machine rotates at quasi-steady-state speed to construct the complete image. Widefield high-resolution Fourier ptychographic tomography is employed to stitch together variably illumined low-resolution sub-images in Fourier space to improve resolution and reduce vignetting effects and other artifacts (such as shadowing due to the stationary components). Image acquisition rate and source power can be adjusted to reduce smearing of the parts that are rotating. From the final image, artifact feature extraction is then used to create fault primitives from which fault detection and identification can be done. A proof-of-concept system is presented with experimental characterization using idealized geometries (black line segments and polygons, gray-scale images). A path to practical implementation using x-ray sources and robotic detector positioning is described.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Asset ManagementSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207