Power Law Analysis Estimates of Analyte Concentration and Particle Size in Highly Scattering Granular Samples from Photon Time-of-Flight Measurements
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
Optical measurements of particle size and composition in granular samples are difficult to make due to complex light scattering from particles. These multiple scattering events bias absorption estimates and complicate the calculation of scattering and absorption coefficients used to estimate sample properties. Time series data, such as chromatograms and photon time-of-flight (TOF) profiles, contain self-repeating (fractal) characteristics. Power law analysis of photon TOF profiles allows the determination of absorption coefficients and particle sizes in a single experiment. A correlation dimension algorithm was used on photon TOF data from scattering samples. MLR models were then obtained from correlation dimension plots for the estimation of sample properties. Estimates of particle sizes and absorption coefficients were shown to agree well with theoretical values when compared using independent validation sets. Results show close to a 3-fold and up to a 5-fold decrease in the errors of estimation of dye concentration and particle size, respectively, as compared to steady-state measurements. The power law approach provides a useful means of determining sample properties in highly scattering media.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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