MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079373222 · doi:10.1117/12.482180

Integrating rod homogeneity as a function of cross-sectional shape

2002· article· en· W2079373222 on OpenAlexaff
Chris F. Dimas, Steve M. Read, J. J. Kuta

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsExfo Electro-Optical Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRodHomogeneity (statistics)OpticsIrradianceBrightnessComputer scienceHomogenization (climate)ProjectorRadiative transferPolygon (computer graphics)Materials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present preliminary results from an analysis of irradiance patterns from integrating rods. A new metric is proposed to provide a more rigorous characterization of homogeneity as compared to the current ANSI standard for illumination and brightness of rectangular integrating rods used in the projector and display industry. This new metric is used in a computational ray-trace analysis to compare the relative homogenizing efficiency of integrating rods as a function of the polygon order of the cross section. Our analysis is performed for an ideal surface-emitting disk in order to yield general insight into the workings of integrating rods for common light sources, and a for full radiometric source model based on measurements of a reflectorized 100W Hg arc lamp. Simulation results indicate that a high degree of homogenization can be achieved for integrating rods with cross sections of polygon order equal to or less than 10. These results refute the commonly held belief that only integrating rods with tileable cross-sectional shapes are effective homogenizers. These results are particularly significant for optical applications in the materials processing industry.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207