MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027202512 · doi:10.1117/12.529920

Angular domain imaging of phantom objects within highly scattering mediums

2004· article· en· W2027202512 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Pfeiffer, Bob Wai, Glenn H. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomScatteringDomain (mathematical analysis)Computer scienceOpticsPhysicsComputer visionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most optical tomography work within highly scattering media has employed coherence domain and time domain methodologies, both detecting the shortest path photons over the dominant randomly scattered background. Angular domain imaging instead uses micromachined collimators to observe only those photons within a small angle of the aligned laser light source, which simulations show are the shortest path photons, while rejecting heavily scattered light. These angular filters consist of micromachined silicon collimator channels 51 micron wide by 10 mm or 20 mm long on 102 micron spacing giving acceptance angles of 0.29 to 0.15 degrees on a CCD detector. Phantom test objects were observed in mediums ranging from 1 to 5 cm thick at scattered to ballistic ratios of 500,000:1 to 10,000,000:1 depending on the illumination pattern. Object detection was retained at the same scattering levels for either 1 cm or 5cm thick mediums, demonstrating little dependence on medium thickness. Detection was also independent of the object size: phantoms ranging from thin structures of 100 micron wide lines and spaces to 4 mm spheres were detected at approximately the same scattering ratios. Minimum size resolution depends on CCD pixel size, not the collimator characteristics. Furthermore, detection was a function of the scattering ratio produced after the phantom's position, not of the whole medium’s scattering ratio. This means objects nearer the detector are much more observable. Longer collimators significantly increase the scattered light rejection. Monte-Carlo simulations with angular tracking demonstrate the object size independence and are undertaken to verify the other behaviors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207