MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172957219 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2013-0050

Handling techniques for channel spectra in synchrotron-based Fourier transform spectra

2013· article· en· W2172957219 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Amr Ibrahim, Adriana Predoi−Cross, Chad Povey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Laser Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Light Source
KeywordsSpectral lineSynchrotronPhysicsChannel (broadcasting)HITRANSpectrometerRadianceComputational physicsOpticsFourier transformAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryTelecommunicationsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the high radiance of synchrotron sources has been used to enhance FTIR spectrometer performance. However, excessive channel spectra when synchrotron sources are used degrade the quality of retrieved spectral parameters. We have investigated seven different techniques for handling channel spectra. These techniques were used to reduce channel spectra for a test group of seven samples of CO2 mixed with air recorded using the synchrotron source at the Canadian Light Source. The increases in signal to noise ratio (SNR) of spectra handled with each technique were calculated. SNR results showed that transmission spectra, produced using synthetic background spectra with simulated channel spectra, achieved the highest SNR improvement. However, when the spectra groups were fitted using a nonlinear least square fit algorithm, the technique using channel spectra fitting produced the smallest fitting residual. Moreover, the retrieved intensities and air broadening coefficients of 21 spectral lines showed that the spectral fitting technique produced the most accurate values as compared to the HITRAN 2008 database (Rothman et al. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, 110, 533 (2009)). Although the spectral fitting technique was accurate in retrieving spectral line parameters, applying the technique at wider spectral ranges reduced this accuracy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Laser ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207