MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004083326 · doi:10.1364/oe.20.005762

Data detection algorithms for multiplexed quantum dot encoding

2012· article· en· W2004083326 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelly Goss, Geoff G. Messier, M.E. Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsQuantum dotDetectorOpticsSpectrometerMultiplexingNoise (video)Interference (communication)Computer sciencePhysicsAlgorithmWavelengthOptoelectronicsTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A group of quantum dots can be designed to have a unique spectral emission by varying the size of the quantum dots (wavelength) and number of quantum dots (intensity). This technique has been previously proposed for biological tags and object identification. The potential of this system lies in the ability to have a large number of distinguishable wavelengths and intensity levels. This paper presents a communications system model for MxQDs including the interference between neighbouring QD colours and detector noise. An analytical model of the signal-to-noise ratio of a Charge-Coupled Device (CCD) spectrometer is presented and confirmed with experimental results. We then apply a communications system perspective and propose data detection algorithms that increase the readability of the quantum dots tags. It is demonstrated that multiplexed quantum dot barcodes can be read with 99.7% accuracy using the proposed data detection algorithms in a system with 6 colours and 6 intensity values resulting in 46,655 unique spectral codes.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207