MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039451749 · doi:10.1364/josab.30.000382

Numerical second- and third-harmonic generation microscopy

2013· article· en· W2039451749 on OpenAlexafffund
Daaf Sandkuijl, Adam Tuer, Danielle Tokarz, J. E. Sipe, Virginijus Barzda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America B · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Centre of InnovationOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsNumerical apertureOpticsPhysicsChirpSecond-harmonic generationFocus (optics)PerpendicularMicroscopyMicroscopeNonlinear opticsNonlinear systemHigh harmonic generationNumerical integrationLaserGeometryMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A full numerical description of second- and third-harmonic generation (SHG and THG) at the focus of a nonlinear microscope is presented. The numerical implementation takes into account reflections and refraction by an arbitrary number of interfaces perpendicular to the optical axis in the focal region. The calculation of the second- and third-harmonic far-field radiation pattern is based on a Green function approach and is presented for any collection direction. The calculations are sped up by using the chirp-z transform for the focusing fields as well as for the far-field radiation calculation. Numerical evidence is presented for deviations in the measurement of the second-order nonlinear susceptibility ratio ρ≡χyyy(2)/χyxx(2) of collagen fibers in SHG microscopy at high excitation numerical aperture. When interface reflections are taken into account, significant direct backward THG is demonstrated from interfaces and multilayer structures.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations63
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America BSame topicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207