ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Classification of the Acoustics of Loose Gravel.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Road condition evaluation is a critical part of gravel road maintenance. One of the assessed parameters is the amount of loose gravel, as this determines the driving quality and safety. Loose gravel can cause tires to slip and the driver to lose control. An expert assesses the road conditions subjectively by looking at images and notes. This method is labor-intensive and subject to error in judgment; therefore, its reliability is questionable. Road management agencies look for automated and objective measurement systems. In this study, acoustic data on gravel hitting the bottom of a car was used. The connection between the acoustics and the condition of loose gravel on gravel roads was assessed. Traditional supervised learning algorithms and convolution neural network (CNN) were applied, and their performances are compared for the classification of loose gravel acoustics. The advantage of using a pre-trained CNN is that it selects relevant features for training. In addition, pre-trained networks offer the advantage of not requiring days of training or colossal training data. In supervised learning, the accuracy of the ensemble bagged tree algorithm for gravel and non-gravel sound classification was found to be 97.5%, whereas, in the case of deep learning, pre-trained network GoogLeNet accuracy was 97.91% for classifying spectrogram images of the gravel sounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.