MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122860753 · doi:10.1017/s1551929512000697

Image and Diffraction Pattern Rotations in the TEM

2012· article· en· W2122860753 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy Today · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotation (mathematics)OpticsDiffractionLens (geology)Orientation (vector space)Scanning transmission electron microscopyScanning electron microscopeMaterials scienceSpiral (railway)Image planeTransmission electron microscopyPhysicsImage (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When electrons pass through the electromagnetic lenses in a transmission electron microscope (TEM), they follow a spiral path that results in image rotation. In many TEMs, the image or diffraction pattern that appears at the final imaging plane has therefore suffered a significant rotation compared to the actual specimen. The extent of the rotation is equal to the sum of the contributions from each lens. In some recent instruments an extra lens is built into the column to compensate for these rotations. In the case of a scanning TEM (STEM), where the image is created by scanning a focused beam on the specimen, the orientation of the image to the specimen is fixed but can be controlled electronically by the computer processor.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.287 · 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