MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809819661 · doi:10.1093/jmicro/dfx089

Calculation, consequences and measurement of the point spread function for low-loss inelastic scattering

2017· article· en· W2809819661 on OpenAlexafffund
R.F. Egerton

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoint spread functionOpticsInelastic scatteringElectron energy loss spectroscopyScatteringEnergy (signal processing)PhysicsComputational physicsDelocalized electronPoint (geometry)Contrast transfer functionMaterials scienceAtomic physicsSpherical aberrationMathematicsQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously derived an analytical formula for the point spread function (PSF) that describes the delocalization of low-loss inelastic scattering. Here, we modify the formula to take account variation of scattered-electron phase. The exponentially attenuated Lorentzian form is retained but its halfwidth at half maximum is chosen to provide better agreement with measurements of the median delocalization distance. For low energy losses, the 1/r2 tails of the PSF extend beyond the region of energy deposition, allowing a small-diameter electron probe to provide energy-loss data from relatively undamaged regions of a beam-sensitive specimen. Alternatively, a core-loss or elastic image can be recorded with less damage by sparse scanning, as in scanned moiré imaging. A procedure is proposed for directly measuring the PSF, using a TEM with aberration-corrected lenses and an energy-filtered imaging system.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopySame topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207