MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589680139 · doi:10.1117/12.2254926

Optimization of data processing with the Akinetic swept-laser: algorithm to automatically adjust the A-scan synchronization delay

2017· article· en· W2589680139 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Rivard, Guy Lamouche

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynchronization (alternating current)Computer scienceAlgorithmTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Akinetic swept-laser (Insight, Lafayette, USA) is an all-semiconductor compact and tunable laser source for optical coherence tomography (OCT). Wavelength sweeps with this source are composed of valid data sections interleaved with invalid data sections. The source provides a precise trigger for each wavelength sweep and a “data valid vector” (DVV) file which identifies the indices of the valid data points in a recorded interferogram. In order to identify valid data in real time during acquisition, a delay must be precisely adjusted between the trigger and the wavelength sweep. Optimizing this delay becomes tedious when changing the interferometer configuration in a multi-purpose OCT system. The source provides tools to do this, but they are not automated and require a sample with a single clean reflection. We developed a simple and robust algorithm, integrated in our OCT data acquisition and treatment software, for finding the optimal delay correction that must be applied to accurately identify the valid data obtained with the Akinetic swept-laser. It can perform optimization either from the laser spectrum or from an interferogram and facilitates delay readjustment when the interferometer configuration is modified.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207