Imaging with a hole-free phase plate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amongst the various ideas that have been brought forward during the latest revival of electron phase plate imaging [1,2], we have proposed the "hole-free phase plate" (HFPP) concept [3]. In this design, the phase shift between the low- and high-frequency parts of the object spectrum is achieved by the localized charging induced by the transmitted beam impinging on a continuous thin film placed in the back focal plane. The proposed design offers several advantages over conventional phase plates (PPs): i) the charged area, comparable in size with the central spot, is automatically centred; ii) charging, the primary obstacle preventing large scale implementation of PPs so far, is turned into an advantage; iii) any microscope can accommodate a HFPP; iv) replacing an exhausted HFPP is accomplished by moving the same film by a few microns. Similarly to most other PP designs, HFPP imaging provides in-focus phase contrast resulting in imaging dose reduction at constant resolution and SNR. Drawbacks of the HFPP are the difficulty in keeping the charge under control, resulting in lack of tunability, and the peculiar image intensity that appears to combine the clean Zernike phase contrast with fringes reminiscent of Fresnel imaging. The aim of this paper is to study more in detail image formation with a HFPP, and compare it with other imaging methods to illustrate the benefits and drawbacks just mentioned.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".