MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080162840 · doi:10.1002/cmr.b.10063

The relationship between the Nyquist criterion and the point spread function

2003· article· en· W2080162840 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon E. Sarty

Bibliographic record

VenueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part B · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUndersamplingAliasingPoint (geometry)Nyquist–Shannon sampling theoremComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)Function (biology)AlgorithmSampling (signal processing)Anti-aliasingSet (abstract data type)MathematicsSimple (philosophy)Volume (thermodynamics)Mathematical analysisPhysicsArtificial intelligenceFilter (signal processing)GeometryComputer visionDigital signal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is well known that to avoid aliasing in the reconstruction of functions on ℝn that have support on a compact set B (having n‐volume |B|), it is necessary to sample k‐space with a density equal to or higher than one sample per 1/|B| n‐volume of k‐space. It is also well known that undersampling any particular region of k‐space will lead to an aliasing, or “folding in” of image information containing the spatial frequency information of the undersampled region. Here a simple description of what it means to fold in specific spatial frequency information is given in terms of the structure of the point spread function. The description should be useful for designers of k‐space sampling schemes that deliberately incorporate undersampled regions. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Concepts Magn Reson Part B (Magn Reson Engineering) 17B: 17–24, 2003.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part BSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207