Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional infrared thermography techniques, including pulsed and lock-in thermography, have shown great potential for non-destructive evaluation of broad spectrum of materials, spanning from metals to polymers to biological tissues. However, performance of these techniques is often limited due to the diffuse nature of thermal wave fields, resulting in an inherent compromise between inspection depth and depth resolution. Recently, matched-filter thermography has been introduced as a means for overcoming this classic limitation to enable depth-resolved subsurface thermal imaging and improving axial/depth resolution. This paper reviews the basic principles and experimental results of matched-filter thermography: first, mathematical and signal processing concepts related to matched-fileting and pulse compression are discussed. Next, theoretical modeling of thermal-wave responses to matched-filter thermography using two categories of pulse compression techniques (linear frequency modulation and binary phase coding) are reviewed. Key experimental results from literature demonstrating the maintenance of axial resolution while inspecting deep into opaque and turbid media are also presented and discussed. Finally, the concept of thermal coherence tomography for deconvolution of thermal responses of axially superposed sources and creation of depth-selective images in a diffusion-wave field is reviewed.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".