MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965098349 · doi:10.1063/1.3478018

Development of an x-ray prism for analyzer based imaging systems

2010· article· en· W1965098349 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian Bewer, Dean Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced X-ray Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsOpticsSpectrum analyzerPrismBragg's lawDiffractionMaterials scienceDiffraction topographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyzer crystal based imaging techniques such as diffraction enhanced imaging (DEI) and multiple imaging radiography (MIR) utilize the Bragg peak of perfect crystal diffraction to convert angular changes into intensity changes. These x-ray techniques extend the capability of conventional radiography, which derives image contrast from absorption, by providing large intensity changes for small angle changes introduced from the x-ray beam traversing the sample. Objects that have very little absorption contrast may have considerable refraction and ultrasmall angle x-ray scattering contrast improving visualization and extending the utility of x-ray imaging. To improve on the current DEI technique an x-ray prism (XRP) was designed and included in the imaging system. The XRP allows the analyzer crystal to be aligned anywhere on the rocking curve without physically moving the analyzer from the Bragg angle. By using the XRP to set the rocking curve alignment rather than moving the analyzer crystal physically the needed angle sensitivity is changed from submicroradians for direct mechanical movement of the analyzer crystal to tens of milliradians for movement of the XRP angle. However, this improvement in angle positioning comes at the cost of absorption loss in the XRP and depends on the x-ray energy. In addition to using an XRP for crystal alignment it has the potential for scanning quickly through the entire rocking curve. This has the benefit of collecting all the required data for image reconstruction in a single measurement thereby removing some problems with motion artifacts which remain a concern in current DEI/MIR systems especially for living animals.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicAdvanced X-ray Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207