MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295088450 · doi:10.1117/12.876474

Hyperspectral and multispectral sensors for remote sensing

2010· article· en· W2295088450 on OpenAlexaff
James J. Miller, Sukhbir Kullar, D. Douglas Cochrane, O Nixon, Andrey Lomako, Cees Draijer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsDalsa Corporation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultispectral imageHyperspectral imagingDichroic glassImage sensorComputer scienceRemote sensingRobustness (evolution)Remote sensing applicationPixelFull spectral imagingLiquid crystal tunable filterCMOS sensorSensitivity (control systems)Multispectral pattern recognitionPayload (computing)Materials scienceArtificial intelligenceElectronic engineeringOptoelectronicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote Hyperspectral and Multispectral sensors have been developed using modern CCD and CMOS fabrication techniques combined with advanced dichroic filters. The resulting sensors are more cost effective while maintaining the high performance needed in remote sensing applications. A single device can contain multiple imaging areas tailored to different multispectral bandwidths in a highly cost effective and reliable package. This paper discusses a five band visible to near IR scanning sensor. By bonding advanced dichroic filters onto the cover glass and directly in the imaging path a highly efficient multispectral sensor is achieved. Up to 12,000 linear pixel arrays are possible1 with this advanced filter technology approach. Individual imaging areas on the device are designed to have unique pixel sizes and clocking to enable tailored imaging performance for the individual spectral bands. Individual elements are also based on high resolution Time Delay and Integration technology2,3 (TDI) to maximize sensitivity and throughput. Additionally for hyperspectral imagers, a split frame CCD design is discussed using high sensitivity back side illuminated (BSI) processes that can achieve high quantum efficiency. As these sensors are used in remote sensing applications, device robustness and radiation tolerance was required.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207