MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118206398 · doi:10.1190/1.3503577

On sampling functions and Fourier reconstruction methods

2010· article· en· W2118206398 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsAliasingSampling (signal processing)Fourier transformSignal reconstructionAlgorithmCoherent samplingComputer scienceDimension (graph theory)Nonuniform samplingFourier analysisMultidimensional signal processingSIGNAL (programming language)Signal processingMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematical analysisTelecommunicationsFilter (signal processing)Undersampling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Random sampling can lead to algorithms in which the Fourier reconstruction is almost perfect when the underlying spectrum of the signal is sparse or band-limited. Conversely, regular sampling often hampers the Fourier data recovery methods. However, 2D signals that are band-limited in one spatial dimension can be recovered by designing a regular acquisition grid that minimizes the mixing between the unknown spectrum of the well-sampled signal and aliasing artifacts. This concept can be easily extended to higher dimensions and used to define potential strategies for acquisition-guided Fourier reconstruction. The wavenumber response of various sampling operators is derived and sampling conditions for optimal Fourier reconstruction are investigated using synthetic and real data examples.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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