MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977468397 · doi:10.1063/1.3687431

Power spectrum and Allan variance methods for calibrating single-molecule video-tracking instruments

2012· article· en· W1977468397 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bob M. Lansdorp, Omar A. Saleh

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAllan varianceSpectral densityAliasingCalibrationComputer scienceFrequency domainBrownian motionTime domainTracking (education)PhysicsOpticsAlgorithmStandard deviationComputer visionMathematicsStatisticsFilter (signal processing)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-molecule manipulation instruments, such as optical traps and magnetic tweezers, frequently use video tracking to measure the position of a force-generating probe. The instruments are calibrated by comparing the measured probe motion to a model of Brownian motion in a harmonic potential well; the results of calibration are estimates of the probe drag, α, and spring constant, κ. Here, we present both time- and frequency-domain methods to accurately and precisely extract α and κ from the probe trajectory. In the frequency domain, we discuss methods to estimate the power spectral density (PSD) from data (including windowing and blocking), and we derive an analytical formula for the PSD which accounts both for aliasing and the filtering intrinsic to video tracking. In the time domain, we focus on the Allan variance (AV): we present a theoretical equation for the AV relevant to typical single-molecule setups and discuss the optimal manner for computing the AV from experimental data using octave-sampled overlapping bins. We show that, when using maximum-likelihood methods to fit to the data, both the PSD and AV approaches can extract α and κ in an unbiased and low-error manner, though the AV approach is simpler and more robust.

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)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations85
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207