MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308024365 · doi:10.1088/1361-6439/ac9e62

2D FPCB micromirror for scanning LIDAR

2022· article· en· W4308024365 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor S Tai, Siyuan He, Behrad Ghazinouri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Micromechanics and Microengineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarOpticsDigital micromirror deviceMaterials scienceFabricationLaser scanningLaserPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a 2D flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) micromirror and a scanning 3D light detection and ranging (LIDAR) based on it by integrating the 2D FPCB micromirror with a commercially available single point LIDAR. The 2D FPCB micromirror retains the benefits of previously developed 1D FPCB micromirrors, i.e. large aperture and low cost while providing rotation of the mirror plate about two orthogonal axes to be able to scan a laser beam about both vertical and horizontal axes to achieve 2D scanning. One 2D FPCB micromirror is integrated with a single point LIDAR to achieve a 3D scanning LIDAR, which, in comparison to the previously developed 1D FPCB micromirror based 3D LIDAR, achieved more compact structure and easier fabrication/assembly due to no strict requirement on the alignment between two micromirrors while only one 2D micromirror rather than two 1D micromirrors used. Prototypes of the 2D FPCB micromirror and the 3D LIDAR based on it are fabricated and tested. The test results demonstrate that the 2D FPCB micromirror based 3D LIDAR achieved a volume reduction over the previous 1D FPCB micromirror based 3D LIDAR from 1042 cm3 to 754 cm3 with a field of view of 40°× 24° at 150 Hz horizontal scanning and 2 Hz vertical scanning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Micromechanics and MicroengineeringSame topicAdvanced Optical Sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207