MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074718351 · doi:10.1063/1.2755391

Noise analysis and noise reduction methods in kilohertz pump-probe experiments

2007· article· en· W2074718351 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin E. H. Anderson, Samuel L. Sewall, Ryan R. Cooney, Patanjali Kambhampati

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Laser Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsNoise (video)AcousticsSIGNAL (programming language)AmplitudeNoise reductionNoise floorSignal averagingNoise measurementPhysicsAmplitude modulationFrequency modulationOpticsComputer scienceSignal transfer functionAnalog signalRadio frequencyTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze sources of noise in kilohertz frequency pump/probe experiments and present a method for reducing experimental noise by identifying and filtering noisy shots. The power spectrum of instrumental noise shows high frequency, small amplitude modulations which cannot be averaged out. A histogram analysis shows that low frequency, large amplitude signals pose a serious obstacle to signal averaging for improved signal to noise. In kilohertz frequency pump/probe experiments, this low frequency noise typically arises from laser scatter due to bubbles, dust, and defects. We quantify the effectiveness in analyzing and rejecting these large amplitude signals which can produce a hindrance to the effectiveness of signal averaging.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicSpectroscopy and Laser ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207