MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969967757 · doi:10.1109/oceans.2003.178275

An alternate analysis for the second-order high frequency bistatic radar cross section of the ocean surface - patch scatter and its inversion

2003· article· en· W1969967757 on OpenAlexaff
Eric W. Gill, Weimin Huang, Jianjun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueOceans 2003. Celebrating the Past ... Teaming Toward the Future (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37492) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Waves and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBistatic radarGeologyInversion (geology)Remote sensingRadarRadar cross-sectionSurface waveRadar engineering detailsAcousticsRadar imagingPhysicsComputer scienceOpticsTelecommunicationsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the verification of the second-order high frequency (HF) ocean surface cross section for a surface patch remote from the transmitter and receiver is presented. The bistatic result is shown to reduce to the proper monstatic models when the appropriate geometry for backscatter is introduced. In particular, the electromagnetic coupling coefficient for the bistatic case is seen to incorporate its monostatic counterpart. It is well-known that the second order portion of the HF radar spectrum of the ocean echo contains substantial information on the surface gravity wave spectrum. Thus, the initial analysis forms the basis for the extraction of ocean surface parameters from bistatic HF radar data. An inversion technique for extraction of ocean surface wave parameters from bistatic HF radar data is briefly developed here. The inversion results from simulated spectra are seen to be very reasonable.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOceans 2003. Celebrating the Past ... Teaming Toward the Future (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37492)Same topicOcean Waves and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207