MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112376840 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2013.0390

Investigation of photoacoustic signal strength as a function of scan-speed and laser-repetition-rate

2013· article· en· W2112376840 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Shi, Peng Shao, Roger J. Zemp

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaserMaterials scienceOpticsPhotoacoustic effectSIGNAL (programming language)Pulse (music)Resolution (logic)Pulse repetition frequencyPhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineRelaxation (psychology)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical-resolution photoacoustic microscopy (OR-PAM) can produce micron-scale, high-resolution images of optically-absorbing chromophores. The pressure rise of photoacoustic signals is proportional to the Grueneisen parameter, which is temperature dependent. High laser repetition-rates may cause overlapping of adjacent laser pulses on targets in laser-scanning OR-PAM. When laser-pulse-repetition intervals are shorter than thermal relaxation times, the zone of laser-spot overlap between pulses can generate higher photoacoustic signal than cases where beam-spots do not overlap or in cases where laser pulse-intervals are longer than the thermal relaxation time. This is because subsequent laser pulses experience higher Grueneisen parameters than previous pulses due to temperature rises induced by the previous pulses. Here, we present our recent studies on photoacoustic signals strength varying with scanning speed and laser-repetition-rate on black tape, human hair and rat blood respectively.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207