MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062123859 · doi:10.1366/0003702053945985

Investigation of Selected Baseline Removal Techniques as Candidates for Automated Implementation

2005· article· en· W2062123859 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Spectroscopy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaseline (sea)Computer scienceEnvironmental sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observed spectra normally contain spurious features along with those of interest and it is common practice to employ one of several available algorithms to remove the unwanted components. Low frequency spurious components are often referred to as 'baseline', 'background', and/or 'background noise'. Here we examine a cross-section of non-instrumental methods designed to remove background features from spectra; the particular methods considered here represent approaches with different theoretical underpinnings. We compare and evaluate their relative performance based on synthetic data sets designed to exemplify vibrational spectroscopic signals in realistic contexts and thereby assess their suitability for computer automation. Each method is presented in a modular format with a concise review of the underlying theory, along with a comparison and discussion of their strengths, weaknesses, and amenability to automation, in order to facilitate the selection of methods best suited to particular applications.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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