MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092498411 · doi:10.1088/0143-0807/22/2/304

Revisiting the Nyquist criterion and aliasing in data analysis

2001· article· en· W2092498411 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Filter Design and Implementation
Canadian institutionsInstitut National d'Optique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAliasingNyquist frequencyHarmonicsNyquist–Shannon sampling theoremPhysicsFourier transformFourier analysisSampling (signal processing)Data acquisitionSIGNAL (programming language)Anti-aliasing filterNyquist stability criterionAlgorithmLimit (mathematics)Simple (philosophy)Discrete Fourier transform (general)Harmonic analysisFourier seriesComputer scienceUndersamplingElectronic engineeringShort-time Fourier transformStatisticsOpticsDigital filterMathematical analysisTelecommunicationsMathematicsBandwidth (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fourier analysis is very useful in detecting the harmonics contained in a given signal. Unfortunately, the Nyquist criterion fixes a limit on the maximum frequency to be detected and as a result the Fourier analysis becomes more difficult to interpret. This papers shows why it is important to consider the Nyquist criterion, based on examples of data acquisition on a square wave. The Fourier analysis on this particular wave is discussed very simply in order to be able to understand the limitation of a data acquisition procedure running for a given sampling time. The experiment described in this paper can be repeated with simple instruments and an analogue-to-digital converter interfaced with a personal computer.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.218 · 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