MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018829073 · doi:10.1366/10-06010

A Model-Free, Fully Automated Baseline-Removal Method for Raman Spectra

2011· article· en· W2018829073 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Georg Schulze, Rod B. Foist, Kadek Okuda, André Ivanov, Robin F. B. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Spectroscopy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsRaman spectroscopyBaseline (sea)Spectral lineAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryMaterials scienceOpticsPhysicsGeologyEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present here a fully automated spectral baseline-removal procedure. The method uses a large-window moving average to estimate the baseline; thus, it is a model-free approach with a peak-stripping method to remove spectral peaks. After processing, the baseline-corrected spectrum should yield a flat baseline and this endpoint can be verified with the χ(2)-statistic. The approach provides for multiple passes or iterations, based on a given χ(2)-statistic for convergence. If the baseline is acceptably flat given the χ(2)-statistic after the first pass at correction, the problem is solved. If not, the non-flat baseline (i.e., after the first effort or first pass at correction) should provide an indication of where the first pass caused too much or too little baseline to be subtracted. The second pass thus permits one to compensate for the errors incurred on the first pass. Thus, one can use a very large window so as to avoid affecting spectral peaks--even if the window is so large that the baseline is inaccurately removed--because baseline-correction errors can be assessed and compensated for on subsequent passes. We start with the largest possible window and gradually reduce it until acceptable baseline correction based on the χ(2) statistic is achieved. Results, obtained on both simulated and measured Raman data, are presented and discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SpectroscopySame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207