MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972476057 · doi:10.1088/2631-8695/ab42eb

Laser speckle reduction utilized by lens vibration for laser projection applications

2019· article· en· W2972476057 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmoud Mohamed, M A Qianli, Liam Flannigan, Chang‐Qing Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Research Express · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpeckle patternLaserOpticsMaterials scienceLaser diodeLens (geology)Reduction (mathematics)Laser power scalingElectronic speckle pattern interferometryDistributed feedback laserSpeckle noiseLaser beam qualityLaser beamsPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, a compact speckle reduction method utilizing vibrating lenses for laser beam scanning is proposed and demonstrated. The maximum speckle reduction efficiency was found to be 75.6% and 81.25% for a 532 nm diode-pumped solid-state (DPSS) laser and a 520 nm laser diode (LD), respectively. The minimum speckle contrast ratio observed using our method was 0.11 for the DPSS laser and 0.06 for the LD. The proposed method can provide speckle reduction with minimal power requirements, a low implementation cost, and no bending for the optical path of the laser beam. Additionally, this method is promising to withstand high-power lasers for use in high lumen laser projectors by optimizing the lens parameters. The demonstrated technique has a small form factor while simultaneously demonstrating a high degree of speckle reduction, which shows potential for speckle reduction in mini- and pico- laser projector applications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Research ExpressSame topicAdvanced Optical Imaging TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207