MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053823786 · doi:10.1364/oe.19.014508

Analyzing speckle contrast for HiLo microscopy optimization

2011· article· en· W2053823786 on OpenAlex
Javier Mazzaferri, Darío Kunik, Jonathan M. Bélisle, Kanwarpal Singh, Simon Lefrançois, Santiago Costantino

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsSpeckle patternOpticsImage qualityBrightnessMicroscopySpeckle noiseContrast (vision)Materials scienceComputer scienceImage processingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPhysicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HiLo microscopy is a recently developed technique that provides both optical sectioning and fast imaging with a simple implementation and at a very low cost. The methodology combines widefield and speckled illumination images to obtain one optically sectioned image. Hence, the characteristics of such speckle illumination ultimately determine the quality of HiLo images and the overall performance of the method. In this work, we study how speckle contrast influence local variations of fluorescence intensity and brightness profiles of thick samples. We present this article as a guide to adjust the parameters of the system for optimizing the capabilities of this novel technology.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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