MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384210660 · doi:10.1039/d2dd00149g

Tackling data scarcity with transfer learning: a case study of thickness characterization from optical spectra of perovskite thin films

2023· article· en· W4384210660 on OpenAlexafffund
Siyu Tian, Zekun Ren, Selvaraj Venkataraj, Yuanhang Cheng, Daniil Bash, Felipe Oviedo, Vijila Chellappan, Yee‐Fun Lim, Armin G. Aberle, Benjamin P. MacLeod, Fraser G. L. Parlane, Curtis P. Berlinguette, Qianxiao Li, Tonio Buonassisi, Zhe Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Discovery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersScience and Engineering Research CouncilEnergy Market Authority of SingaporeNational Research Foundation SingaporeAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchNatural Resources CanadaMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyNational Research FoundationCanadian Natural Resources LimitedNational University of Singapore
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)Transfer of learningCharacterization (materials science)Perovskite (structure)Spectral lineData transmissionMaterials scienceScarcityThin filmTransfer (computing)Transmission (telecommunications)Computer scienceOpticsChemical engineeringNanotechnologyArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineeringTelecommunicationsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

thicknessML predicts film thickness from reflection and transmission spectra. Transfer learning enables thickness prediction of different materials with good performance. Transfer learning also bridges the gap between simulation and experiment.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital DiscoverySame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207