MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154098886 · doi:10.1364/ao.47.000407

Parameter selection methods for axisymmetric flame tomography through Tikhonov regularization

2008· article· en· W2154098886 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

VenueApplied Optics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods in inverse problems
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTikhonov regularizationDeconvolutionCurvatureRegularization (linguistics)Rotational symmetryBlind deconvolutionAlgorithmApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsInverse problemMathematical analysisComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deconvolution of optically collected axisymmetric flame data is equivalent to solving an ill-posed problem subject to severe error amplification. Tikhonov regularization has recently been shown to be well suited for stabilizing this deconvolution, although the success of this method hinges on choosing a suitable regularization parameter. Incorporating a parameter selection scheme transforms this technique into a reliable automatic algorithm that outperforms unregularized deconvolution of a smoothed data set, which is currently the most popular way to analyze axisymmetric data. We review the discrepancy principle, L-curve curvature, and generalized cross-validation parameter selection schemes and conclude that the L-curve curvature algorithm is best suited to this problem.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.281 · 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