MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117474390 · doi:10.1063/5.0304774

Calibration of microscope-coupled Fourier transform infrared spectrometers for CW and modulated light emission measurements

2025· article· en· W7117474390 on OpenAlexaff
M. Brazeau, M. Giroux, N. Boubrik, Raphaël St-Gelais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationEmissivityFourier transform infrared spectroscopyInfraredSpectrometerDetectorFourier transformResponsivityFourier transform spectroscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurement of low power infrared light emission spectra from microstructures can be challenging but is of key importance in several research fields. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers can be used for characterizing such weak light emitters, but this requires additional custom user calibration compared to traditional FTIR measurements of, e.g., transmission or reflection. These calibration techniques are well documented for standalone FTIR instruments but not for microscope-coupled FTIRs, even though such an architecture greatly simplifies the collection of light from micro- and nanoscale structures. We propose and demonstrate a calibration method for microscope-FTIRs based on the well-known emissivity of doped silicon at high temperatures. With this method, we measure the responsivity and noise floor of a recently installed microscope-FTIR instrument (Bruker© Invenio® R coupled with a Hyperion II microscope), which is found to be within theoretically predicted values. The method is demonstrated for two different detectors (mercury cadmium telluride and indium antimonide), in both continuous wave and modulated (step-scan) emission measurement modes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207