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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An electrical impedance tomography (EIT) system images internal conductivity from surface electrical stimulation and measurement. Such systems necessarily comprise multiple design choices from cables and hardware design to calibration and image reconstruction. In order to compare EIT systems and study the consequences of changes in system performance, this paper describes a systematic approach to evaluate the performance of the EIT systems. The system to be tested is connected to a saline phantom in which calibrated contrasting test objects are systematically positioned using a position controller. A set of evaluation parameters are proposed which characterize (i) data and image noise, (ii) data accuracy, (iii) detectability of single contrasts and distinguishability of multiple contrasts, and (iv) accuracy of reconstructed image (amplitude, resolution, position and ringing). Using this approach, we evaluate three different EIT systems and illustrate the use of these tools to evaluate and compare performance. In order to facilitate the use of this approach, all details of the phantom, test objects and position controller design are made publicly available including the source code of the evaluation and reporting software.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it