MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998552585 · doi:10.1364/ao.52.006910

Imaging properties of three refractive axicons

2013· article· en· W1998552585 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Saikaley, Brahim Chebbi, Ilya Golub

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced optical system design
Canadian institutionsAlgonquin CollegeLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxiconOpticsPoint spread functionDepth of fieldFresnel diffractionMaterials sciencePhysicsLaserLaser beamsDiffraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The imaging properties of three types of refractive axicons are examined by using them in an imaging system. A linear axicon, a logarithmic axicon, and a Fresnel axicon are characterized by determining their point spread functions (PSFs) experimentally and by numerical simulation. The PSFs, which vary along the depth of field for the cases considered in the present investigation, are used in digital filters to denoise the images. A comparison of the imaging performance of these three optical elements is presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicAdvanced optical system designFrench-language works237,207