MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214566331 · doi:10.1088/1361-6439/ac58df

A position sensing method for 2D scanning mirrors

2022· article· en· W4214566331 on OpenAlexaff
Behrad Ghazinouri, Siyuan He, Trevor S Tai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Micromechanics and Microengineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)OpticsLidarVibrationRotation (mathematics)Orientation (vector space)DetectorMeasure (data warehouse)PhysicsAcousticsComputer scienceGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a cost-effective position sensing method for 2D scanning mirrors. The method uses only one 1D PSD (position sensitive detector) located at the backside of the 2D scanning mirror plate to retrieve the 2D rotation angle about the two axes separately in real time. Any 2D scanning mirror with resonant vibration about one axis and quasi-static vibration such as sinusoidal, saw tooth, triangular oscillation about the other axis can use this method. The two vibration axes are orthogonal to each other to form the scanning patterns, which are most desired in scanning 3D LiDAR systems. 3D scanning LiDAR is the targeted application for this research. The method uses timing measurement to measure the resonant vibration angle and Lagrange interpolation polynomial approximation to retrieve the quasi-static vibration angle. A prototype has been built to measure the 2D rotation angle of a 2D micromirror. The measured angle using the proposed method was verified using a 2D PSD. The largest errors for the vertical/horizontal angles were 9.6% and 5.36% respectively. The position sensing mechanism is also integrated to a scanning 2D micromirror based LiDAR system to demonstrate it as real time capability.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Micromechanics and MicroengineeringSame topicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology TechniquesFrench-language works237,207