MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2230644595 · doi:10.1063/1.4939252

Evaluation of reconstruction errors and identification of artefacts for JET gamma and neutron tomography

2016· article· en· W2230644595 on OpenAlexfundno aff
T. Craciunescu, A. Murari, V. Kiptily, I. Lupelli, A. Fernandes, S. E. Sharapov, Ion Tiseanu, V. Zoiţa

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health
KeywordsEmissivityTomographic reconstructionTomographyCovarianceIterative reconstructionPhysicsNeutronOpticsProjection (relational algebra)Algebraic Reconstruction TechniqueComputer scienceAlgorithmComputational physicsMathematicsComputer visionNuclear physicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Joint European Torus (JET) neutron profile monitor ensures 2D coverage of the gamma and neutron emissive region that enables tomographic reconstruction. Due to the availability of only two projection angles and to the coarse sampling, tomographic inversion is a limited data set problem. Several techniques have been developed for tomographic reconstruction of the 2-D gamma and neutron emissivity on JET, but the problem of evaluating the errors associated with the reconstructed emissivity profile is still open. The reconstruction technique based on the maximum likelihood principle, that proved already to be a powerful tool for JET tomography, has been used to develop a method for the numerical evaluation of the statistical properties of the uncertainties in gamma and neutron emissivity reconstructions. The image covariance calculation takes into account the additional techniques introduced in the reconstruction process for tackling with the limited data set (projection resampling, smoothness regularization depending on magnetic field). The method has been validated by numerically simulations and applied to JET data. Different sources of artefacts that may significantly influence the quality of reconstructions and the accuracy of variance calculation have been identified.

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 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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207