MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342040817 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2009-0030

CALCULATION OF MODULATION TRANSFER FUNCTION OF AN OPTICAL SYSTEM BY USING SKEW RAY TRACING

2009· article· en· W2342040817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kuo-Hwa Tseng, Chieh Kung, Te-Tan Liao, Hao-Peng Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Council
KeywordsOptical transfer functionSkewRay tracing (physics)OpticsImage planeRay transfer matrix analysisTracingPlane (geometry)Transformation (genetics)Transfer functionResolution (logic)DiagramPhysicsCoordinate systemFunction (biology)Computer scienceImage (mathematics)GeometryMathematicsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The resolution and performance of an optical system can be characterized by a quantity known as the modulation transfer function (MTF), which is a measurement of an optical system’s ability to transfer contrast from the specimen to the intermediate image plane at a specific resolution. Accordingly, this study employs skew ray tracing based on a 4 × 4 homogeneous coordinate transformation matrix and Snell’s law to develop a detailed methodology for determining the spot diagram on the image plane when light rays pass through the optical system. And the authors present calculations of the MTF of an optical system by using the spot diagram on the image plane. The numerical results of the proposed methodology are demonstrated using a symmetrical optical system.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207