SHARP edges: Recovering cortical phase contrast through harmonic extension
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To recover local phase contrast at the edges of the brain (e.g., cortex), where it is otherwise unavailable with the conventional form of the technique sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (SHARP). METHODS: A harmonic potential field, such as the magnetic "background" field, is an analytic field and can thus be represented by a convergent power series. Using SHARP to obtain an initial estimate of the harmonic background field over a reduced inner portion of the brain, a three-dimensional Taylor expansion was performed to extend field coverage to the brain edges. The method, called Extended-SHARP, was quantitatively assessed through a numerical field-forward simulation and qualitatively demonstrated in vivo. RESULTS: Using a typical spherical kernel (6 mm radius), Extended-SHARP recovered on average 26% more in vivo brain volume than SHARP. When applied to the numerical model, local field contrast around an otherwise lost edge source was recovered, with the resulting error comparable to that of conventional SHARP. CONCLUSION: The lost field values near the edges of the brain can be recovered through an easily implemented adaptation to conventional SHARP.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it