Evaluation of 3-D Acquisition Surfaces for Radar-Based Microwave Breast Imaging
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
This study investigates the impact that the acquisition surface has on the internal coverage of an object in the context of radar-based near-field microwave (MW) breast imaging. We define an acquisition surface as the surface over, which data are collected. Three different three-dimensional (3-D) data acquisition surfaces are investigated: 1) cylindrical, 2) hemispherical, and 3) patient specific. Three 3-D numerical breast models are used for the study. A realistic ultra-wideband (UWB) antenna generates incident fields and records the total fields. The responses from targets are analyzed, and object coverage is evaluated in terms of range distances, cross-range distances, and cumulative radiated power directed into the object by the antenna array embedded in the acquisition surface. Images are formed to verify these observations. We demonstrate that a patient-specific acquisition surface provides greater responses from targets, superior object coverage and improved images compared to the other acquisition surfaces studied.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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