MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030964324 · doi:10.1117/1.oe.53.8.084109

Modified sinusoidal fringe-pattern projection for variable illuminance in phase-shifting three-dimensional surface-shape metrology

2014· article· en· W2030964324 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Waddington, Jonathan Kofman

Bibliographic record

VenueOptical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIlluminanceOpticsStructured-light 3D scannerRoot mean squareProjection (relational algebra)MetrologyMean squared errorMathematicsPhysicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A camera-independent method of avoiding image saturation using modified sinusoidal fringe-pattern projection to reduce surface measurement error and thus accommodate variable illuminance in phase-shifting surface-shape measurement is presented. The maximum input gray level (MIGL) in the projected patterns is reduced to an optimal tradeoff point, below which the intensity modulation, contrast, and signal-to-noise ratio would diminish the advantage of further MIGL reduction. Measurement simulations using 31 MIGL values, from 105 to 255 in increments of 5, demonstrated reductions in root-mean-square errors for ambient illuminance of 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, and 900 lx, from 0.38, 0.56, 0.86, 1.21, 85, and 373 mm, respectively, at 255 MIGL, to 0.31 to 0.32 mm at the optimum MIGL. The advantage of the method was confirmed in real measurements of a flat plate and human masks. The ability to perform camera-independent measurements under variable lighting conditions and surface reflectivity may lead to more practical measurements in uncontrolled environments.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
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

Citations74
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptical EngineeringSame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207