MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106933379 · doi:10.1063/1.4929408

Note: A simple image processing based fiducial auto-alignment method for sample registration

2015· article· en· W2106933379 on OpenAlexaff
Wesley D. Robertson, Lucas Resque Porto, Candice J. X. Ip, Megan Nantel, Friedjof Tellkamp, Yinfei Lu, R. J. Dwayne Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMax-Planck-Gesellschaft
KeywordsFiducial markerComputer scienceSample (material)SoftwareImage registrationCalibrationImage processingComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMATLABImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple method for the location and auto-alignment of sample fiducials for sample registration using widely available MATLAB/LabVIEW software is demonstrated. The method is robust, easily implemented, and applicable to a wide variety of experiment types for improved reproducibility and increased setup speed. The software uses image processing to locate and measure the diameter and center point of circular fiducials for distance self-calibration and iterative alignment and can be used with most imaging systems. The method is demonstrated to be fast and reliable in locating and aligning sample fiducials, provided here by a nanofabricated array, with accuracy within the optical resolution of the imaging system. The software was further demonstrated to register, load, and sample the dynamically wetted array.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.014

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicImage and Object Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207