MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1671225380 · doi:10.1109/milcom.1998.722173

Follower jammer considerations for frequency hopped spread spectrum

2002· article· en· W1671225380 on OpenAlex
E.B. Felstead

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Radio Networks and Spectrum Sensing
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsSpread spectrumComputer scienceJammingFrequency-hopping spread spectrumElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringPhysicsCode division multiple access

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design considerations to be used to account for follower jamming of frequency hopping (FH) spread spectrum systems are presented. A follower jammer attempts to determine the hop frequency with a "determinator" circuit, and then generates jamming in a range about that frequency. Geometrical considerations show the spatial limit at which follower jamming becomes impossible. The minimum determination time and the probability of correct determination, P/sub hc/, are derived as a function of the intercepted SNR, and the determinator resolution. Both fast hopping (one or more hops per information symbol) and slow hopping are analyzed. The use of follower jammers against hopped FDMA systems is also discussed. A summary design recipe is given. It is concluded that the vulnerability to follower jammers can be reduced to tolerable levels by use of current practical hop rates.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.206 · 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