Mass density images from the diffraction enhanced imaging technique
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
Conventional x-ray radiography measures the projected x-ray attenuation of an object. It requires attenuation differences to obtain contrast of embedded features. In general, the best absorption contrast is obtained at x-ray energies where the absorption is high, meaning a high absorbed dose. Diffraction-enhanced imaging (DEI) derives contrast from absorption, refraction, and extinction. The refraction angle image of DEI visualizes the spatial gradient of the projected electron density of the object. The projected electron density often correlates well with the projected mass density and projected absorption in soft-tissue imaging, yet the mass density is not an "energy"-dependent property of the object, as is the case of absorption. This simple difference can lead to imaging with less x-ray exposure or dose. In addition, the mass density image can be directly compared (i.e., a signal-to-noise comparison) with conventional radiography. We present the method of obtaining the mass density image, the results of experiments in which comparisons are made with radiography, and an application of the method to breast cancer imaging.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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