Scanning setup for the investigation of fluorescence beam spectra
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
In this paper we describe the scanning setup for investigating refracted beam spectra from changed cancer tissues. A special mechanical construction enables us to position measurement sensors using step motors and a micrometric XY stage. A fiber sensor which has been made of special fiber that does not provide any self fluorescence has been used for the illumination and detection. Full Text: PDF References: B. W. Chwirot, W. Jedrzejczyk, Luminescencja tkanek – nowe narzedzie wykrywania i lokalizacji nowotworow, Torun (1995). J. A. Kiernan, M. Wessendorf, Autofluorescence:Causes and cures, Toronto Western Research Institute, [DirectLink] B. Valeur, Molecular fluorescence – Principles and applications, Wiley – VCH, (2001). H. Zeng, A. McWillimas, S. Lam, Optical spectroscopy and imaging for early lung cancer detection, Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy 1, 111-122 (2004). [CrossRef] W. Denk, J. Strickler, W. W. Webb, Two-Photon Laser Scanning fluorescence Microscopy, Science 248, 73-76 (1990). [CrossRef] B. A. Flusberg, E. D. Cocker, W. Piyawattanametha, J. C. Jung, E. L. M. Cheung, M. J, Schnitzer, Fiber-optic fluorescence imaging, Nature Methods 2, 12 (2005). [CrossRef] J. W. Lichtman, J. A. Conchello, Fluorescence microscopy, Nature Methods 2 (2005). [CrossRef]
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) | 0.000 | 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