Quantitative comparison of minimum inductance and minimum power algorithms for the design of shim coils for small animal imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-performance shim coils are required for high-field magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Complete sets of high-power and high-performance shim coils were designed using two different methods: the minimum inductance and the minimum power target field methods. A quantitative comparison of shim performance in terms of merit of inductance (ML) and merit of resistance (MR) was made for shim coils designed using the minimum inductance and the minimum power design algorithms. In each design case, the difference in ML and the difference in MR given by the two design methods was <15%. Comparison of wire patterns obtained using the two design algorithms show that minimum inductance designs tend to feature oscillations within the current density; while minimum power designs tend to feature less rapidly varying current densities and lower power dissipation. Overall, the differences in coil performance obtained by the two methods are relatively small. For the specific case of shim systems customized for small animal imaging, the reduced power dissipation obtained when using the minimum power method is judged to be more significant than the improvements in switching speed obtained from the minimum inductance method.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".