MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156184767 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.185

Sparsity Constrained Reconstruction for Electrical Impedance Tomography

2020· article· en· W3156184767 on OpenAlexaff
Ganesh Teja Theertham, Santhosh Kumar Varanasi, Phanindra Jampana

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyTomographyIterative reconstructionOutlierElectrical impedanceReconstruction algorithmComputer scienceAlgorithmMaterials sciencePhysicsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) can be used to study the hydrodynamic characteristics in multi-phase flows such as gas holdup in bubble columns, air-core in hydro-cyclone, etc. In EIT, the main objective is to estimate the electrical properties (conductivity distribution) of an object in a region of interest based on the surface voltage measurements. The main challenge in such reconstruction (estimation of conductivity distribution) is the low spatial resolution. In this paper, a sparse optimization approach for image reconstruction in EIT is presented. The main idea presented in this article is based on considering the L1 norm on the data term, which enhances the reconstruction of conductivity distributions with sharp changes near phase boundaries. Further, this method is also robust to outliers in the data. The accuracy of the proposed method is demonstrated with the help of two phantoms, and a comparison with the existing methods is also presented.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207