MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244262366 · doi:10.1121/1.5138926.1

10.1121/1.5138926.1

2019· dataset· en· W4244262366 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Bilodeau, Nicolas Quaegebeur, Olivier Robin, Patrick O’Donoughue, Patrice Masson, Alain Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueDefault Digital Object Group · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTikhonov regularizationAnechoic chamberBeamformingInverse problemVibrationComputer scienceTransient (computer programming)AlgorithmCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Time domainRegularization (linguistics)AcousticsMathematicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An acoustic imaging algorithm is proposed herein for transient noise source time reconstruction. Time domain formulations are not well suited for acoustic imaging because of the size of the resulting system to be inversed. Based on the phase coherence principle widely used in ultrasound imaging and image processing, the first step of the algorithm consists in proposing the phase coherence metric used to reject pixels that are unlikely to contribute to the radiated sound field. This translates in a reduction of the domain size and ill-posedness of the problem. In the second step, the inverse problem is solved using the Tikhonov regularization and the generalized cross-validation to extract the vibration field on the imaging domain. Two test cases are considered: a simulated baffled piston and a panel submitted to a mechanical impact in anechoic conditions. The actual vibration field of the panel is measured with an optical technique for reference. In both numerical and experimental cases, the reconstructed vibration field using the proposed approach compares well with their respective reference. The results confirm that transient excitations can be localized and quantified with the proposed approach, in contrast with the classical time-domain beamforming that dramatically overestimates its magnitude.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2720.519

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefault Digital Object GroupSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207