MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of a CZT photon counting detector for contaminant detection

2021· article· en· W3211607716 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Nguyen, Pierre‐Antoine Rodesch, Devon Richtsmeier, K. Iniewski, Magdalena Bazalova‐Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Instrumentation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsRedlen Technologies (Canada)University of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadmium zinc tellurideImaging phantomDetectorBinNoise (video)Energy (signal processing)WeightingComputer scienceImage resolutionPhoton countingMaterials scienceOpticsEnvironmental scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligencePhysicsImage (mathematics)AlgorithmAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the food industry, X-ray inspection systems are utilized to ensure packaged food is free from physical contaminants to maintain a high level of food safety for consumers. However, one of the challenges in the food industry is detecting small, low-density contaminants from packaged food. Cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) photon counting detectors (PCDs) can potentially alleviate this problem given its multi-energy bin capabilities, high spatial resolution and ability to eliminate electronic noise, which is superior to the conventional energy integrating detector (EID). However, the image quality from a CZT PCD can be further improved by applying an optimized energy bin weighting scheme that maximizes energy bin images that provide the largest image contrast and lowest image noise. Therefore, in this work, five contaminant materials embedded in an acrylic phantom were imaged using a CZT PCD while the phantom was in constant motion to mimic food products moving on a conveyor belt. Energy bin optimization was performed by applying an image-based weighting scheme and these results showed contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) improvements ranging between 1.02–1.91 relative to an equivalent EID acquisition.

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 score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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