MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2099631233

Enhanced particle tracking algorithm based on a modified expectation maximization algorithm

2006· article· en· W2099631233 on OpenAlexaff
Chad N. Young, David A. Johnson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmSpline (mechanical)Tracking (education)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An enhanced particle tracking algorithm is developed based on a modified expectation maximization algorithm. Particle tracking results using this method for a series of nine synthetic vortical test images are compared to results obtained using the algorithms of Baek & Lee and Labonte. The test cases utilized particle drop out, varying vortex sizes and shapes and other parameters to evaluate the algorithms. The appreciable improvement in the accuracy of EPTA tracking results for the test cases presented here shows the benefits of explicitly incorporating a vector field representation that is flexible yet regularized and serves as a model to both guide and constrain the process of determining particle correspondence. In particular, it is shown how two B-spline surfaces that are regularized using either a thin plate spline (TPS) or velocity-shear-dilation (VSD) model can accommodate flow gradients while attempting to maintain a degree of smoothness in the displacement field during the determination of particle-to-particle correspondence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows→French-language works237,207→