MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

31.4: Standardization of Speckle Measurement for Large Screen Laser Illuminated Video Projection Systems

2014· article· en· W2064051967 on OpenAlexaff
Terry C. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueSID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Canadian institutionsChristie (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeckle patternProjection (relational algebra)StandardizationLaserOpticsMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceSpeckle noiseImage qualityArtificial intelligenceComputer visionLaser lightImage (mathematics)PhysicsAlgorithmData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Laser illumination for projection introduces undesirable speckle artifacts that must be measured accurately and suppressed. A useful and accurate standardized method to measure and quantify the effect has been elusive. This paper describes work that investigates the most significant measurement setup parameters affecting correlation between manufacturer measurements and observed speckle image quality.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSID Symposium Digest of Technical PapersSame topicAdvanced Optical Imaging TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207