MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the achievable resolution from microwave tomography

2015· article· en· W1931747851 on OpenAlexaff
Puyan Mojabi, Nozhan Bayat, Majid Ostadrahimi, Amer Zakaria, Joe LoVetri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeorgian CollegeUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrowaveMicrowave imagingImage resolutionRangingInverse scattering problemWavelengthInverse problemResolution (logic)OpticsComputer scienceIterative reconstructionTomographyElectromagnetic radiationPhysicsScatteringComputer visionArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microwave tomography (MWT) is an electromagnetic imaging modality that is actively being investigated for different biomedical and industrial non-destructive testing applications. In MWT, the quantitative dielectric profile of the object of interest (OI) is to be found from scattered microwave data collected outside the object. This is achieved by processing the scattered data using an appropriate inversion algorithm, which effectively solves the associated electromagnetic inverse scattering problem. The achievable image resolution from an MWT system is governed by several parameters including those of the OI itself. For example, experimental separation resolution levels ranging from one-thirtieth to one-eighth of a wavelength have been reported from an MWT system, depending on the object being imaged (Gilmore, et. al., IEEE AWPL, 2009). Similar resolution studies can also be found in (S. Semenov, et. al., IEEE MTT, 2000) and (T. Cui, et. al., IEEE TAP, 2004) and in their references.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207