MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095802323 · doi:10.1017/s1431927612000207

Spatial Resolution Optimization of Backscattered Electron Images Using Monte Carlo Simulation

2012· article· en· W2095802323 on OpenAlexaff
C Probst, Hendrix Demers, Raynald Gauvin

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodElectronImage resolutionComputational physicsResolution (logic)Statistical physicsPhysicsOpticsMaterials scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsNuclear physicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relation between probe size and spatial resolution of backscattered electron (BSE) images was studied. In addition, the effect of the accelerating voltage, the current intensity and the sample geometry and composition were analyzed. An image synthesis method was developed to generate the images from backscattered electron coefficients obtained from Monte Carlo simulations. Spatial resolutions of simulated images were determined with the SMART-J method, which is based on the Fourier transform of the image. The resolution can be improved by either increasing the signal or decreasing the noise of the backscattered electron image. The analyses demonstrate that using a probe size smaller than the size of the observed object (sample features) does not improve the spatial resolution. For a probe size larger than the feature size, the spatial resolution is proportional to the probe size.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207