MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117028817 · doi:10.1364/ao.42.002923

Haar transform analysis of photon time-of-flight measurements for quantification of optical properties in scattering media

2003· article· en· W2117028817 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia E.W. Gributs, David H. Burns

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScatteringOpticsWaveletLogarithmAttenuation coefficientAbsorption (acoustics)Materials scienceHaar waveletWavelet transformPhoton countingPhotonRefractive indexPhysicsComputational physicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MathematicsDiscrete wavelet transformChemistryMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method to independently quantify the absorption and the scattering properties of samples based on the analysis of the Haar transform (HT) of photon time-of-flight (TOF) distributions is described. A series of reflectance photon TOF measurements were acquired from absorbing/scattering milk samples of known composition (0 < mu(a) < 0.025 mm(-1); 100 < mu(s) < 250 mm(-1)). The HT of the profiles was calculated, and the regression based on the most parsimonious subset of wavelets was determined by the genetic algorithm (GA). In addition, the utility of computing the logarithm of the profiles or of the absolute value of the wavelet coefficients before the GA was studied. Results show that the absorption coefficient could be estimated with a coefficient of variation (C.V.) of 6.7% and an r2 of 0.99 by use of the log of selected wavelets of frequency less than 800 MHz. Scattering coefficients were estimated with a C.V. of 2.3% and an r2 of 0.99 with the log of wavelets of frequency less than 400 MHz. The above results suggest that a simplified instrument based on low-frequency switches could be developed to quantify the optical properties of highly scattering media.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207