MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1722718903 · doi:10.1139/v11-022

Improvements in MR imaging of solids through gradient waveform optimization

2011· article· en· W1722718903 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marco L.H. Gruwel, Peter Latta, Bogusław Tomanek

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNMR spectroscopy and applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Institute for Biodiagnostics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveformMagnetic resonance imagingChemistrySignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Nuclear magnetic resonanceLine (geometry)Resonance (particle physics)Noise (video)Resolution (logic)Range (aeronautics)Computational physicsPhysicsOpticsComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Materials scienceArtificial intelligenceAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is known to provide a useful approach for the exploration of the chemistry and dynamics of a wide range of soft condensed materials. However, its application to solids has been limited to those materials with relatively narrow resonances. The time needed to obtain an image of a solid with a given resolution and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is directly proportional to the line width of the resonance. For MRI to become practical for the imaging of solids it will have to rely on the development and use of MR sequences that avoid the issues raised by line broadening of the resonance. In this paper we review the latest contributions towards MR imaging of solids from our laboratory, in particular, applications using optimized gradient waveforms. Acoustic noise reduction and SNR improvement obtained with modifications of the standard single-point imaging sequence are presented and discussed using examples.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicNMR spectroscopy and applicationsFrench-language works237,207