MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2573688505 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2016-0471

General theories of reflection and transmission scratch holograms

2017· article· en· W2573688505 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScratchHolographyReflection (computer programming)PhysicsOpticsDistortion (music)Transmission (telecommunications)Position (finance)Computer graphics (images)Computer scienceOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scratch holograms can be created easily and the associated interesting phenomena may be observed in daily life. In this paper, general and quantitative theories of scratch holograms were derived and presented. Both the reflection case where a scratch hologram reflects light, and the transmission case where it refracts and transmits light, were considered. A predictive model, which has not been presented in the literature, was developed. The model was able to solve for the position of the bright points along the scratches using a computational method. Extensive experimentation was carried out with scratch holograms of two designs to verify the model. Photographic evidence demonstrated extremely good fits with the theoretical predictions. The model was then used to theoretically simulate the 3D spatial positions of the hologram and also quantify distortion present in the images to illustrate novel real-life applications of the theories presented.

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.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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