MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793910122 · doi:10.1117/12.2286215

Adaptive micro endoscopy using liquid crystal lenses with segmented electrodes (Conference Presentation)

2018· article· en· W2793910122 on OpenAlexaff
Tigran Galstian, Louis Bégel, Arutyun Bagramyan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National d'Optique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquid crystalPrismOpticsAdaptive opticsLens (geology)ElectrodeComputer scienceMaterials scienceComputer graphics (images)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid crystalline (LC) materials are user friendly materials for electro optics applications [1], the most popular of which is the flat panel display [2]. Another interesting development, involving LCs, was the electrically variable lens that already had several commercial applications in DVD pick-up systems, Webcams and cell phones [3,4]. Their quality can be very high [5] and our team has recently demonstrated that they can be used in endoscopes for the study of deep regions of the brain [6]. We shall first describe various approaches explored to build electrically variable LC lenses. We shall then describe electrically variable LC lenses with segmented electrodes that enable almost adaptive optical capability, including the creation of a dynamic lens, prism, astigmatism and coma. This could be used to compensate various wavefront deformations in optical systems used to study various biological systems. We shall describe their advantages and drawbacks for the same application. References [1]. P.G. de Gennes and J. Prost, The Physics of Liquid Crystals, (Oxford University Press, 1995), 2nd Edition. [2]. Robert H. Chen, Liquid Crystal Displays: Fundamental Physics and Technology, Wiley, July 2011, ISBN: 978-0-470-93087-8. [3]. T. Galstian, Smart Mini-Cameras, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis group, Boca Raton, 2013. [4]. www.lensvector.com [5]. T. Galstian, K. Asatryan, V. Presniakov, A. Zohrabyan, A. Tork, A. Bagramyan, S. Careau, M. Thiboutot, M. Cotovanu, Optics Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 14, pp. 3265-3268 (2016), doi: 10.1364/OL.41.003265. [6]. A. Bagramyan, T. Galstian and A. Saghatelyan, Journal of Biophotonics, 1–13 (2016) / DOI 10.1002/jbio.201500261.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Imaging TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207