MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contaminant detection using a CZT photon counting detector with TDI image reconstruction

2022· article· en· W3194995588 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Nguyen, Devon Richtsmeier, Kris Iniewski, Magdalena Bazalova‐Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Instrumentation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsRedlen Technologies (Canada)University of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomCadmium zinc tellurideDetectorPhoton countingPixelNoise (video)Computer scienceOpticsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMaterials sciencePhysicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Food x-ray inspection systems are designed to detect unwanted physical contaminants in packaged food to maintain a high level of food safety for consumers. Modern day x-ray inspection systems often utilize line scan sensors to detect these physical contaminants but are limited to single or dual energies. However, by using a photon counting detector (PCD), a new generation of food inspection systems capable of acquiring images at more than two energy bins could improve discrimination between low density contaminants. In this work, five type of contaminants were embedded in an acrylic phantom and imaged using a cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) PCD with a pixel pitch of 330 μm. A set of images were acquired while the phantom was stationary, and another set of images were acquired while the phantom was moving to mimic the movement of a conveyor belt. Image quality was assessed by evaluating the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for each set of images. For imaging times larger than 25 ms, the results showed that the moving phantom data set yielded larger CNR values compared to a stationary phantom. While conventional x-ray inspections often utilize line scan sensors, we report that physical contaminant detection is possible with a CZT PCD x-ray 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of InstrumentationSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207