MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automatic and Scalable SiPM Calibration for Multi-Channel Time-Of-Flight Radiography Instrumentation

2025· article· W4417470689 on OpenAlexaff
A. García, Romain Espagnet, François Gagnon, L.-D. Gaulin, F. Cournoyer, Claire Normandeau, Réjean Fontaine, Marc‐André Tétrault

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsInstitut interdisciplinaire d'innovation technologiqueUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationUSableInstrumentation (computer programming)ScalabilitySilicon photomultiplierNoise (video)GridDigital radiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SiPM has ignited the practical use of timeof-flight measurements in several applications. More recently, the technique has been proposed for radiography and computed tomography, where the timing information leads to the discrimination of ballistic and scattered photons. This translates into an improved contrast to noise ratio in the image without the use of antiscatter grid collimators. On the other hand, the SiPM operational conditions in these applications are very different from widespread ones such as Positron Emission Tomography, notably with a 5 to 10 times lower radiation energy. Calibration methods must therefore be adapted, but also scalable and with very short execution time in anticipation of future imaging systems with thousands of channels. This work proposes an automatic and distributed calibration methodology adapted to ToF in radiology and computed tomography. It is validated on a table-top 2 channel test setup, but with keeping an outlook on having a concept usable in a clinical context.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207