MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099455356 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2005.1602807

Performance and characterization of high frequency linear arrays

2006· article· en· W2099455356 on OpenAlexaff
M. Lukács, Jian‐Hua Yin, Guofeng Pang, R. Garcia, Emmanuel Chérin, R. P. Williams, F. Stuart Foster, J. Mehi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsFujiFilm VisualSonics (Canada)University of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransducerMaterials scienceBandwidth (computing)Center frequencyAcousticsElectrical impedanceSurface micromachiningFrequency responseHydrophonePrinted circuit boardElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringFabricationBand-pass filterPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new approach for fabricating high frequency (> 20 MHz) linear array transducers, based on laser micromachining, has been developed. The capabilities of this approach will be presented using a 30 MHz 64-element, 74-micron pitch and 8- micron kerf design. Each fabricated array has been integrated onto a flex circuit for ease of handling and the flex has been integrated onto a custom circuit board for ease of testing. Examples of measured characteristics of arbitrary array elements are as follows: Electrical impedance, measured in air, of about 120 Ohms with -20 degrees of phase. All transducer elements were acoustically tested using a +/- 30V single cycle drive pulse and a 40µm needle hydrophone. The average center frequency was found to be 28.1 +/- 0.7 MHz with a 1-way bandwidth of 83 +/- 1.2 %. The average peak-to-peak pressure measured at an axial distance of 10 mm from a transducer element was 590 +/- 24 kPa. The combined acoustic and electrical cross talk for nearest neighbours, averaged across the bandwidth of the device was determined to be -40 dB. Simulations of the array characteristics based on finite element analysis performed with PZFlex show good agreement with experimental results. Synthesized images based on the measured performance of the array elements for a given fabricated transducer will also be presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207