MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1848596129

A track scoring MOP for perimeter surveillance radar evaluation

2012· article· en· W1848596129 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Information Fusion · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTrack (disk drive)Radar trackerMeasure (data warehouse)Track-before-detectConsistency (knowledge bases)RadarReal-time computingSecondary surveillance radarRelation (database)Tracking (education)Data miningReal world dataSimulationArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For real-world tracking performance evaluation, there are issues associated with measurement-to-track assignment, operating conditions of sensor modeling and uncertainty, and coordination between sensors for accurate track evaluation. In this paper, we demonstrate a real-world application of track performance evaluation for perimeter surveillance radars. To this end, a new track scoring measure of performance (MOP) is introduced called the Target Coverage Consistency (TCC). It is similar to the percentage-time tracked, however the score is modulated to account for divergent, redundant and false track times. Through a simple example and real-world data analysis, we demonstrate the usefulness of the scoring methodology for performance assessment in relation to real operational sensors.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.253 · 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