Accurate measurement of relative tilt and azimuth angles in electron tomography: A comparison of fiducial marker method with electron diffraction
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
Electron tomography is a method whereby a three-dimensional reconstruction of a nanoscale object is obtained from a series of projected images measured in a transmission electron microscope. We developed an electron-diffraction method to measure the tilt and azimuth angles, with Kikuchi lines used to align a series of diffraction patterns obtained with each image of the tilt series. Since it is based on electron diffraction, the method is not affected by sample drift and is not sensitive to sample thickness, whereas tilt angle measurement and alignment using fiducial-marker methods are affected by both sample drift and thickness. The accuracy of the diffraction method benefits reconstructions with a large number of voxels, where both high spatial resolution and a large field of view are desired. The diffraction method allows both the tilt and azimuth angle to be measured, while fiducial marker methods typically treat the tilt and azimuth angle as an unknown parameter. The diffraction method can be also used to estimate the accuracy of the fiducial marker method, and the sample-stage accuracy. A nano-dot fiducial marker measurement differs from a diffraction measurement by no more than ±1°.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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