MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564294493 · doi:10.1063/1.4973122

Distortion correction and cross-talk compensation algorithm for use with an imaging spectrometer based spatially resolved diffuse reflectance system

2016· article· en· W2564294493 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek J. Cappon, Thomas J. Farrell, Qiyin Fang, Joseph E. Hayward

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsDistortion (music)OpticsSpectrometerImaging spectrometerCompensation (psychology)ReflectivityDiffuse reflectionMaterials scienceComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsBandwidth (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical spectroscopy of human tissue has been widely applied within the field of biomedical optics to allow rapid, in vivo characterization and analysis of the tissue. When designing an instrument of this type, an imaging spectrometer is often employed to allow for simultaneous analysis of distinct signals. This is especially important when performing spatially resolved diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. In this article, an algorithm is presented that allows for the automated processing of 2-dimensional images acquired from an imaging spectrometer. The algorithm automatically defines distinct spectrometer tracks and adaptively compensates for distortion introduced by optical components in the imaging chain. Crosstalk resulting from the overlap of adjacent spectrometer tracks in the image is detected and subtracted from each signal. The algorithm's performance is demonstrated in the processing of spatially resolved diffuse reflectance spectra recovered from an Intralipid and ink liquid phantom and is shown to increase the range of wavelengths over which usable data can be recovered.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicCalibration and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207