MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012574291 · doi:10.2351/1.3567955

Automatic real-time guidance of laser machining with inline coherent imaging

2011· article· en· W2012574291 on OpenAlexaff
Paul J. L. Webster, Logan G. Wright, Kevin D. Mortimer, Ben Y. C. Leung, Joe Yu, James M. Fräser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Laser Applications · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiningCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Materials scienceOptical coherence tomographyImage processingOpticsComputer scienceElectrical discharge machiningLaserComputer visionPhysicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical coherence imaging can measure hole depth in real-time (>20 kHz) during laser drilling without being blinded by intense machining light or incoherent plasma emissions. Rapid measurement of etch rate and stochastic melt relaxation makes these images useful for process development and quality control in a variety of materials including metals, semiconductors, and dielectrics. The ability to image through the ablation crater in materials transparent to imaging light allows the guidance of blind hole cutting even with limited a priori knowledge of the sample. Significant improvement in hole depth accuracy with the application of manual feedback from this imaging has been previously demonstrated [P. J. L. Webster et al., Opt. Lett. 35, 646 (2010)]. However, the large quantity of raw data and computing overhead are obstacles for the application of coherent imaging as a truly automatic feedback mechanism. Additionally, the high performance components of coherent imaging systems designed for their traditional application in biological imaging are costly and may be unnecessary for materials processing. In this work, we present a coherent imaging system design that costs less than a fifth of comparable commercial products. We also demonstrate streamlined image processing suited for automated feedback that increases processing speed by two orders of magnitude.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations58
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Laser ApplicationsSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207