MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2842914447 · doi:10.1364/oe.26.018758

Dual-beam manually actuated distortion-corrected imaging (DMDI): two dimensional scanning with a single-axis galvanometer

2018· article· en· W2842914447 on OpenAlexafffund
Madeline Harlow, Calum MacAulay, Pierre Lane, Anthony M. D. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGalvanometerDistortion (music)OpticsImaging phantomScannerPerpendicularPhysicsBeam (structure)Sample (material)Stereo imagingComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsLaserBandwidth (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently demonstrated a new two-dimensional imaging paradigm called dual-beam manually actuated distortion-corrected imaging (DMDI). This technique uses a single mechanical scanner and two spatially separated beams to determine relative sample velocity and simultaneously corrects image distortions due to manual actuation. DMDI was first demonstrated using a rotating dual-beam micromotor catheter. Here, we present a new implementation of DMDI using a single axis galvanometer to scan a pair of beams in approximately parallel lines onto a sample. Furthermore, we present a method for automated distortion correction based on frame co-registration between images acquired by the two beams. Distortion correction is possible for manually actuated motion both perpendicular and parallel to the galvanometer-scanned lines. Using en face OCT as the imaging modality, we demonstrate DMDI and the automated distortion correction algorithm for imaging a printed paper phantom, a dragon fruit, and a fingerprint.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207