The influence of permittivity models on phantom images obtained from electrical capacitance tomography
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
Four different phantoms have been placed within the sensor field of an electrical capacitance tomography (ECT) system mounted on a bench-scale fluidized bed. The phantoms were created with fluid catalytic cracking catalyst particles having a packed-bed relative permittivity of 2.4. Linear back-projection (LBP) image reconstruction has been compared with iterative LBP for three permittivity models: parallel, series, and Maxwell model. The parallel permittivity model provides the best representation of the phantoms. Tubes of solids placed in an empty bed could only be reconstructed near the ECT wall, while voids created by immersion of an empty tube in a packed bed of solids could be imaged equally well at the centre or wall. After 500 iterations, the size of the phantom in the reconstructed image is in very good agreement with the actual size of the phantom.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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