MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545779207 · doi:10.1063/1.1291301

Optical absorption depth profiling of photodegraded poly(vinylchloride) (PVC) films by quantitative photothermal deflection technique

2000· article· en· W1545779207 on OpenAlexaff
S. W. Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotothermal therapyMaterials scienceOpticsDeconvolutionRepeatabilityDeflection (physics)Attenuation coefficientPhotothermal spectroscopyImpulse responseImpulse (physics)Analytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryNanotechnologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An improved photothermal beam deflection technique is applied for optical absorption depth profiling of UV photodegraded PVC films, for nondestructive evaluation of their decomposition mechanism. A new model-based on diffraction theory is used to describe the photothermal response (with bicell recording), induced by impulse irradiation of a depth dependent array of thin planar optical absorbers approximating the sample’s depth profile. Improved techniques of alignment, sample preparation and quantitative deconvolution of the bicell impulse response have increased the signal repeatability and reduced the principal bias errors affecting this ill posed problem. By this technique and a stable solution of the inverse problem, the absorption coefficient depth profile is accurately reconstructed in PVC films. Experimental depth profiles were confirmed against destructive techniques run on identical samples of the degraded material. An excellent agreement was found between depth profiles recovered using the mirage effect and these reference methods. Observed absorption profiles were fully consistent with known patterns of depth dependent PVC degradation under nitrogen and oxygen atmospheres.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionFrench-language works237,207