MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078196862 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2014.0165

Fabrication of a high-frequency phased array with sparse Vernier array element spacing for grating lobe suppression

2014· article· en· W2078196862 on OpenAlexaff
Andre Bezanson, Jeff Leadbetter, Jeremy A. Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVernier scalePhased arrayGratingOpticsTransducerMaterials sciencePhased-array opticsPhased array ultrasonicsAcousticsPhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsAntenna (radio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents the design, fabrication and characterization of a 50 MHz Vernier array. The Vernier array was based on a 128 element transducer with half-wavelength pitch, where every third element was used for transmit, every forth element was used for receive and unused elements were left inactive. The array was a forward looking kerfless design based on a PZT-5H substrate with an element-to-element pitch of 19 microns, and the probe was packaged in a 2.5 mm by 3.1 mm endoscopic form factor. The array was fabricated with a single P(VDF-TrFE)-copolymer matching layer and a polymethylpentene (TPX) lens for passive elevation focusing to a depth of 6 mm. To generate beam profiles, images and videos, the transducer was connected to an in-house developed 64-channel, high-frequency phased array beamformer. Near real-time radiation patterns and images were collected at a frame rate of 10 Hz. The performance of the Vernier array was directly compared to that of a previously developed phased array transducer with approximately one-wavelength pitch. Both transducers possessed similar two-way beamformed pulse bandwidths of 60%. At large steering angles the Vernier array suppressed the grating lobe levels 15 dB over the previously developed phased array, however, as a result of the sparseness of the Vernier array, the measured two-way sensitivity was 18.2 dB lower than the phased array with the fully active aperture. Experimental measurements were in good agreement with the theoretical predictions of 20dB grating lobe suppression and 22dB lower sensitivity than the phased array. Comparison images were generated of wire phantoms in a water bath as well as wire phantoms situated in a tissue phantom in order to assess the tradeoff between lower grating lobe levels at the expense of lower sensitivity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207