Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a new approach based upon the adaptive chirplet transform (ACT) to characterize the time-dependent behavior of the visual evoked potential (VEP) from its initial transient portion (tVEP) to the steady-state portion (ssVEP). This approach employs a matching pursuit (MP) algorithm to estimate the chirplets and then a maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) algorithm to refine the results. The ACT decomposes signals into Gaussian chirplet basis functions with four adjustable parameters, i.e., time-spread, chirp rate, time-center and frequency-center. In this paper, we show how these four parameters can be used to distinguish between the transient and the steady-state phase of the response. We also show that as few as three chirplets are required to represent a VEP response. Compared to decomposition with Gabor logons, a more compact representation can be achieved by using Gaussian chirplets. Finally, we argue that the adaptive chirplet spectrogram gives a superior visualization of VEP signals' time-frequency structures when compared to the conventional spectrogram.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".