Estimation and compensation of dispersion for a high-resolution optical coherence tomography system
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Balanced reference-sample arm dispersion is critical in optical coherence tomography systems in order to attain images with the highest axial resolution. Here, an experimental method for the estimation and correction of dispersion in an optical coherence tomography system is presented. The system dispersion was computed from two optical coherence tomography images of the reference mirror that were symmetrically placed around the zero delay point. The method was tested using a broad bandwidth spectral domain optical coherence tomography system, compensating for the dispersion caused by a 3 mm thick fused silica flat placed in the sample arm. Using our method, dispersion compensation was achieved and the axial resolution was improved from 10.6 μ m to 1.9 μ m in air. Results suggest that this technique can be a simple and effective method for eliminating axial resolution degradation due to dispersion mismatch between the sample and reference arm in high-resolution optical coherence tomography systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it