MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412186964 · doi:10.1364/boe.564589

Accurate flow speed measurement through correlation ratios using a mode-selective photonic lantern in optical coherence tomography

2025· article· en· W4412186964 on OpenAlexafffund
Raphaël Maltais–Tariant, Rodrigo Itzamná Becerra-Deana, Simon Brais-Brunet, Mathieu Dehaes, Caroline Boudoux

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCégep de Saint-LaurentCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustinePolytechnique Montréal
FundersInstitut TransMedTechNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyOpticsLanternPhotonicsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)TomographyPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel method for measuring non-axial flow speed using optical techniques such as optical coherence tomography is introduced. The approach was based on the use of a modally-specific photonic lantern, which permits simultaneous probing of the sample with three distinct coherent spread functions. Transverse flow speed is measured from the ratio between the cross-correlation and autocorrelation of the signals. It achieved a 3 to 5 times higher accuracy than common autocorrelation approaches and measured flows as slow as 0.5 mm/s for an integration time of 1 second. Additionally, the method gives information on the flow's three-dimensional orientation, does not require information about the diffusion coefficient, and is more robust to bias errors such as a gradient in the axial flow velocity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207