MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313059813 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202226603023

Optical Design at The Age of AI

2022· article· en· W4313059813 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Thibault, Geoffroi Côté, Julie Buque, Jean‐François Lalonde

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced optical system design
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrapolationLens (geology)Point (geometry)Computer scienceThrough-the-lens meteringEngineering drawingIndustrial engineeringArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionOpticsEngineeringMathematicsGeometryPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data-driven methods to assist lens design have recently begun to emerge; in particular, under the form of lens design extrapolation to find starting points (lenses and freeform reflective system). I proposed a trip over the years to better understand why the AI have been applied first to the starting point problems and where we are going in the future.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicAdvanced optical system designFrench-language works237,207