Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D LIDARs (Light Detection and Ranging) with 1.5μm nanosecond pulse lasers have been increasingly used in different applications. The main reason for their popularity is that these LIDARs have high performance while at the same time can be made eye-safe. Because the laser hazard effect on eyes or skin at this wavelength region (<1.4μm) is mainly from the thermal effect accumulated from many individual pulses over a period of seconds, scanning can effectively reduce the laser beam hazard effect from the LIDARs. Neptec LIDARs have been used in docking to the International Space Station, military helicopter landing and industrial mining applications. We have incorporated the laser safety requirements in the LIDAR design and conducted laser safety analysis for different operational scenarios. While 1.5μm is normally said to be the eye-safe wavelength, in reality a high performance 3D LIDAR needs high pulse energy, small beam size and high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) to achieve long range, high resolution and high density images. The resulting radiant exposure of its stationary beam could be many times higher than the limit for a Class 1 laser device. Without carefully choosing laser and scanning parameters, including field-of-view, scan speed and pattern, a scanning LIDAR can’t be eye- or skin-safe based only on its wavelength. This paper discusses the laser safety considerations in the design of eye-safe scanning LIDARs, including laser pulse energy, PRF, beam size and scanning parameters in two basic designs of scanning mechanisms, i.e. galvanometer based scanner and Risley prism based scanner. The laser safety is discussed in terms of device classification, nominal ocular hazard distance (NOHD) and safety glasses optical density (OD).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".