MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493808029

Clutter removal in the automatic detection of concealed weapons with late time responses

2013· article· en· W1493808029 on OpenAlexaff
Justin J. McCombe, Natalia K. Nikolova, Mihail Georgiev, T. Thayaparan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radar Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterRadarArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConstant false alarm rateGround-penetrating radarContinuous-wave radarMatrix pencilComputer visionAlgorithmEigenvalues and eigenvectorsRadar imagingPhysicsTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been shown that the late time response of a weapon contains important information about its resonant signature, which is dependent on the weapon's size, shape and constitutive parameters. We extract the resonances of a radar return using the Total Least Squares Matrix Pencil Method. Background clutter is suppressed by de-embedding its eigenvalues from the radar return. An Artificial Neural Network Classifier is used to determine if a target is a threat or not. Finally, we demonstrate the algorithm performance using measured data taken in a cluttered environment. The experiments show that, with proper clutter removal, monostatic radar measurements from 0.5 GHz to 5 GHz within 1.5 meters of the inspected person provide a feasible tool for concealed weapon detection.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Radar ConferenceSame topicAdvanced SAR Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207