MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164027306 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.2007.4313305

Optimizing Reconstruction Resolution for Weak-phase Object in Lensless Holographic Imaging

2007· article· en· W2164027306 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDigital Holography and Microscopy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolographyPixelOpticsDigital holographic microscopyIterative reconstructionImage resolutionResolution (logic)Charge-coupled devicePhase (matter)Image planePhysicsPlane (geometry)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper shows that the best reconstruction resolution for holographic imaging of weak-phase objects using a plane wave and charge-coupled device (CCD) recording is determined by the CCD pixel size. Resolution can be optimized by choosing an optimal distance from CCD plane to the object. Our numerical simulations quantify the relation between reconstruction resolution, CCD pixel size, total pixel number, and distance from phase object to CCD plane.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Holography and MicroscopyFrench-language works237,207