MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1586641054 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.1992.301066

The use of generalized moments for data reduction in maximum likelihood positioning for gamma cameras

2003· article· en· W1586641054 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Therrien, N. Pouliot, Daniel Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Conference on Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationMoment (physics)ScintillationTruncation (statistics)Computer scienceBijectionReduction (mathematics)AlgorithmDimensionality reductionMethod of moments (probability theory)Lookup tableMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsCombinatoricsDetectorStatisticsGeometryMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ML-GM (maximum-likelihood generalized-moment) method is shown to be worthwhile as a positioning technique, as there is a bijection between the space of the moments and the scintillation coordinates space. It allows efficient computation to be done, as the required dimensionality of the problem is kept at the minimum number required to take into account the 3-D nature of the scintillation process. Moreover, the generalized moments are more stable than individual photomultiplier-tube response. The computation can be made even faster by use of a precomputed look-up table of the GM vs. the coordinate (X, Y, Z, thus sparing the need to compute the moments online. The depth-of-interaction estimate makes the energy evaluation better than in Anger positioning. Any corrections required by the nonhomogeneous nature of the crystal do not interfere with the positioning method, but are done painlessly as an after-positioning computation.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Conference on Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical ImagingSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207