Optimized off-axis cylindrical mirror-focused line-scanning system for optical coherence tomography imaging applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The parameters of an off-axis cylindrical mirror-focused line-scanning system were studied to optimize the flatness of the 2 mm scan field. The scanning system parameters included the beam size, the distance between the scanning and the focusing mirror, the angle between the incident beam and the reflected beam, the optical scan angle, and the effective focal length of the cylindrical mirror. Because of the off-axis line-scanning system configuration, the scanning could be carried out either in the tangential (Y-scan) or in the sagittal (X-scan) plane. A 53 nm spectral bandwidth light source was used to evaluate the imaging performance of the scanning system. Since reflective optics is employed in this work for focusing, the scanning system could be used with a higher spectral bandwidth light source for optical coherence tomography applications. The effect of the angle between of the incident and reflected beams, the distance between the mirrors, the focal length of the cylindrical mirror and the scanning directions, on the flatness of the scan field were studied. It was proved that the sagittal scanning is least sensitive to variations in scanning system parameters and thus provides maximum flexibility in design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".