MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084507143 · doi:10.1117/12.878849

Photoacoustic sonar: principles of operation, imaging, and signal-to-noise analysis in time and frequency domains

2011· article· en· W2084507143 on OpenAlexafffund
Sergey A. Telenkov, Andreas Mandelis

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaResearch and Innovation Foundation
KeywordsSonarAcousticsPulse compressionSonar signal processingSIGNAL (programming language)Matched filterSignal processingFrequency domainRadarSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)WaveformFilter (signal processing)Time domainNoise (video)Marine mammals and sonarComputer scienceOpticsPhysicsTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A photoacoustic (PA) imaging methodology utilizing coded optical excitation and correlation signal processing has been described. The basic principles of using relatively long coded waveforms and a matched filter signal compression to increase signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and axial resolution are common in conventional radar and sonar systems. To emphasize these similarities, the proposed technique is called the photoacoustic sonar (or radar). We describe the implementation of the PA sonar using a near-IR intensity modulated continuous wave laser source and frequency-domain correlation processing of the acoustic response. Application of the PA sonar for imaging of biological materials with discrete chromophores was studied using tissue mimicking phantoms. The SNR gain achieved with linear chirps is analyzed and compared with conventional time-domain photoacoustics.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207