SU-GG-T-603: Generalized Equivalent Field Size in IMRT

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (6Part25) ◽  
pp. 3326-3326
Author(s):  
M Chen ◽  
Q Chen ◽  
G Olivera ◽  
W Lu
Keyword(s):  
Field Size ◽  
Equivalent Field

Harvest Field Sizing as a Technique to Remove Undersize French Prunes

HortScience ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 452a-452
Author(s):  
Richard Buchner ◽  
Seeley Mudd ◽  
Bruce Carroll ◽  
Mark Gilles
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Content ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Market Value ◽  
Dry Weight ◽  
Soluble Solids ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Test Machine ◽  
Test Field ◽  
Marginal Value ◽  
High Sugar Content

Overall profitability is a major goal in successful prune production and a major component in any prune management system. Large prune crops in 1996 and 1997 have stimulated considerable interest in undersize fruit. Undersize prunes currently have marginal value and may represent a net loss because of costs to haul, dry, and to market order payments on low value prunes. One technique to control delivery size is to field size at harvest. Field sizing involves installing size-sorting devices on harvesters, which allow small prunes to fall out while valuable fruit is collected. Field sizing is considered a “risky” strategy because of the potential to remove prunes with economic value. During the 1997 harvest, 21 infield harvest sizing evaluations were made in prune orchards throughout Tehama county. The first evaluation occurred on 12 Aug. 1997, at the start of prune harvest. The final evaluation was done on 5 Sept. 1997, at the tail end of harvest. The objective was to sample throughout the harvest period to test field sizing under various sugar, size, and fruit pressure scenarios. The test machine was 1-inch bar sizer. Of the 21 sample dates, undersize fruit was clearly not marketable in 20 of the 21 samples. Discarded fruit averaged 133 dry count per pound. Only one sample out of 21 may have had market value at 86 dry count per pound. Although small in size, these prunes had very high sugar content contributing to their dry weight. In this evaluation, a 1-inch bar sizer did a good job of separating fruit with and without market value under the 1997 price schedule. As harvest date becomes later and soluble solids increase, the chances of sorting out marketable prunes also increases.

scholarly journals Detection of the sign of expansion as a function of field size and eccentricity

1996 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan F. Te Pas ◽  
Astrid M. L. Kappers ◽  
Jan J. Koenderink
Keyword(s):  
Field Size

scholarly journals Estimation of dose and cancer risk to newborn from chest X-ray in South-South Nigeria: a call for protocol optimization

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akintayo Daniel Omojola ◽  
Michael Onoriode Akpochafor ◽  
Samuel Olaolu Adeneye ◽  
Isiaka Olusola Akala ◽  
Azuka Anthonio Agboje
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Radiological Protection ◽  
International Studies ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Thermoluminescent Dosimeters ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
Neonatal Patient ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background The use of X-ray as a diagnostic tool for complication and anomaly in the neonatal patient has been helpful, but the effect of radiation on newborn stands to increase their cancer risk. This study aims to determine the mean, 50th percentile (quartile 2 (Q2)), and 75th percentile (quartile 3 (Q3)) entrance surface dose (ESD) from anteroposterior (AP) chest X-ray and to compare our findings with other relevant studies. The study used calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), which was positioned on the central axis of the patient. The encapsulated TLD chips were held to the patients’ body using paper tape. The mean kilovoltage peak (kVp) and milliampere seconds (mAs) used was 56.63(52–60) and 5.7 (5–6.3). The mean background TLD counts were subtracted from the exposed TLD counts and a calibration factor was applied to determine ESD. Results The mean ESDs of the newborn between 1 and 7, 8 and 14, 15 and 21, and 22 and 28 days were 1.09 ± 0.43, 1.15 ± 0.50, 1.19 ± 0.45, and 1.32 ± 0.47 mGy respectively. A one-way ANOVA test shows that there were no differences in the mean doses for the 4 age groups (P = 0.597). The 50th percentile for the 4 age groups was 1.07, 1.26, 1.09, and 1.29 mGy respectively, and 75th percentile were 1.41, 1.55, 1.55, and 1.69 mGy respectively. The mean effective dose (ED) in this study was 0.74 mSv, and the estimated cancer risk was 20.7 × 10−6. Conclusion ESD was primarily affected by the film-focus distance (FFD) and the patient field size. The ESD at 75th percentile and ED in this study was higher compared to other national and international studies. The estimated cancer risk to a newborn was below the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) limit for fatal childhood cancer (2.8 × 10−2Sv−1).

EXPRESS: How the size of exogenous attentional cues alters visual performance: from response gain to contrast gain

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110248
Author(s):  
Xiaogang Wu ◽  
Aijun Wang ◽  
Ming Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Visual Selective Attention ◽  
Visual Performance ◽  
Target Size ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Gain Modulation ◽  
Absolute Size ◽  
Contrast Gain ◽  
Exogenous Cues ◽  
Exogenous Cue ◽  
Attentional Cues

The normalization model of attention (NMoA) predicts that the attention gain pattern is mediated by changes in the size of the attentional field and stimuli. However, existing studies have not measured gain patterns when the relative sizes of stimuli are changed. To investigate the NMoA, the present study manipulated the attentional field size, namely, the exogenous cue size. Moreover, we assessed whether the relative rather than the absolute size of the attentional field matters, either by holding the target size constant and changing the cue size (experiments 1-3) or by holding the cue size constant and changing the target size (experiment 4), in a spatial cueing paradigm of psychophysical procedures. The results show that the gain modulations changed from response gain to contrast gain when the precue size changed from small to large relative to the target size (experiments 1-3). Moreover, when the target size was once again made larger than the precue size, there was still a change in response gain (experiment 4). These results suggest that the size of exogenous cues plays an important role in adjusting the attentional field and that relative changes rather than absolute changes to exogenous cue size determine gain modulation. These results are consistent with the prediction of the NMoA and provide novel insights into gain modulations of visual selective attention.

scholarly journals Measurements of Electron Beam Dose Distributions in Perspex Block for Different Field Size

2021 ◽  
Vol 1829 (1) ◽  
pp. 012025
Author(s):  
Safa Sami ◽  
Ban S Hameed ◽  
Nabaa M Alazawy ◽  
Mustafa J Al-Musawi
Keyword(s):  
Electron Beam ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Dose Distributions ◽  
Beam Dose

scholarly journals Can we Beat the Square Root Bound for ECDLP over 𝔽p2 via Representation?

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 293-306
Author(s):  
Claire Delaplace ◽  
Alexander May
Keyword(s):  
Elliptic Curve ◽  
Quadratic Field ◽  
Discrete Logarithm ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Square Root ◽  
Multivariate Polynomial ◽  
Bivariate Polynomial ◽  
Testing Problem ◽  
Polynomial Zero ◽  
Representation Technique

AbstractWe give a 4-list algorithm for solving the Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm (ECDLP) over some quadratic field 𝔽p2. Using the representation technique, we reduce ECDLP to a multivariate polynomial zero testing problem. Our solution of this problem using bivariate polynomial multi-evaluation yields a p1.314-algorithm for ECDLP. While this is inferior to Pollard’s Rho algorithm with square root (in the field size) complexity 𝓞(p), it still has the potential to open a path to an o(p)-algorithm for ECDLP, since all involved lists are of size as small as $\begin{array}{} p^{\frac 3 4}, \end{array}$ only their computation is yet too costly.

Dependence of Anomaloscope Matching on Viewing Distance or Field Size

Nature ◽  
1947 ◽  
Vol 160 (4053) ◽  
pp. 23-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. G. HORNER ◽  
E. T. PURSLOW
Keyword(s):  
Field Size ◽  
Viewing Distance
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document