MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410493676 · doi:10.1093/jmicro/dfaf025

Auto-thresholding for unbiased electron counting

2025· article· en· W4410493676 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

VenueMicroscopy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersResearch IrelandExploratory Research for Advanced TechnologyJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceFusion Oriented REsearch for disruptive Science and TechnologyAdvanced Materials and Bioengineering Research
KeywordsThresholdingDetectorSIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceNoise (video)Frame rateElectronDetection theoryOpticsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionPhysicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As interest in fast real-space frame-rate scanning transmission electron microscopy for both structural and functional characterization of materials increases, so does the need for precise and fast electron detection techniques. Electron counting, with monolithic, segmented, or 4D detectors, has been explored for many years. Recent studies have shown that a retrofittable signal digitizer for a monolithic or segmented detector can be a sustainable and accessible way to enhance the performance of existing detectors, especially for imaging at fast scan speeds. Since such signal digitization uses a threshold on the gradient of the detector signal to identify electron events, appropriate threshold choice is key. Previously, this threshold has been set manually by the operator and is therefore inherently susceptible to human bias. In this work, we introduce an auto-thresholding approach for electron counting to determine the optimal threshold by maximizing the difference in identified counts from a stream with real electron events and a stream with only noise. This leads to easier operation, increased throughput and eliminates human bias in signal digitization. When pixel dwell time becomes shorter than scintillator response time, digitization of the detector signal is needed to avoid artefacts in STEM images. Optimizing the threshold for this digitization process automatically is crucial to achieve high-quality quantitative digitized images, free of human bias for what threshold yields the best digitization.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.309 · 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