MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404824380 · doi:10.3233/xst-2010-027900279

Interior reconstruction using local inverse

2011· article· en· W4404824380 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of X-Ray Science and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverseMathematicsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Truncated projections can arise from a detector with a limited field of view (LFOV). Truncation artifacts can be reduced through extrapolation methods; however the reconstructed images with extrapolation are often over-corrected or under-corrected. Recently, an iterative reconstruction-reprojection algorithm was developed, which incorporated extrapolation with iterative algorithm. It gave the possibility to better reduce truncation artifacts compared to using the extrapolation method alone. This article builds a theoretic foundation for the above iterative reconstruction-reprojection algorithm. The theoretic foundation is suitable to parallel-beam, fan-beam and cone-beam computed tomography(CT). Two assumptions are summarized from the CT system. Then, a truncation-artifact-free solution for the problem of LFOV is derived from these assumptions. The solution contains a "local inverse" of matrix. The local inverse of a matrix is defined using the sub-matrix and its general inverse. The solution can be approximately implemented as the iterative reconstruction-reprojection algorithm which is just the algorithm mentioned above.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.195 · 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