MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2497740660 · doi:10.1063/1.4952846

Alignment and position visualization methods for the biomedical imaging and therapy (BMIT) MRT lift

2016· article· en· W2497740660 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Bree, Denise Miller, Graham Kerr, George Belev, Tomasz W. Wysokiński, Wade Dolton

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Photolithography Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLift (data mining)Computer scienceVisualizationMicrobeamPython (programming language)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)OpticsPhysicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Microbeam Radiation Therapy (MRT) Lift is an eight stage positioning and scanning system at the Canadian Light Source’s BMIT Facility. Alignment of the sample with the beam using the MRT Lift is a time consuming and challenging task. The BMIT Group has developed a Python-based MRT Lift positioning and control program that uses a combination of computational and iterative methods to independently adjust the sample’s X, Y, Z, pitch and roll positions. The program offers “1-Click” alignment of the sample to the beam. Use of a wireframe visualization technique enables even minute movements to be illustrated. Proposed movements and the resulting MRT Lift position can be manually verified before being applied. Optional integration with the SolidWorks modelling platform allows high quality renderings of the MRT Lift in its current or proposed position to be displayed in real time. Human factors principles are incorporated into the program with the objective of delivering easy to use controls for this complex device.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicAdvancements in Photolithography TechniquesFrench-language works237,207