MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993149099 · doi:10.1364/josaa.24.003150

Intensity-ratio error compensation for triangular-pattern phase-shifting profilometry

2007· article· en· W1993149099 on OpenAlexaff
Peirong Jia, Jonathan Kofman, Chad English

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsNeptec Design Group (Canada)University of WaterlooUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProjectorIntensity (physics)OpticsCompensation (psychology)Phase (matter)Observational errorProfilometerMathematicsMaterials sciencePhysicsStatisticsSurface finish

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an intensity-ratio error-compensation method to decrease the measurement error caused by projector gamma nonlinearity and image defocus in triangular-pattern phase-shifting profilometry. The intensity-ratio measurement error is first determined by simulating the measurement with the triangular-pattern phase-shifting method with ideal and real captured triangular-pattern images based on the ideal and real gamma nonlinearity functions. A lookup table that stores the intensity-ratio measurement error corresponding to the measured intensity ratio is constructed and used for intensity-ratio error compensation. Experiments demonstrated that the intensity-ratio error compensation method significantly reduced the measurement error in the triangular-pattern phase-shifting method by 28.5%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207