MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984587469 · doi:10.1117/12.828401

Algorithms for the categorization and identification of IR military signatures

2009· article· en· W1984587469 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Turbide, T.L. Smithson, Daniel St-Germain, Pierre Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Signature (topology)CombustionSensor fusionInfraredRemote sensingEnvironmental sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligencePhysicsAstronomyGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Military targets such as aircrafts and flares do not exhibit unique infrared signatures; their emissions are dominated by combustion products (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide and hydrogen chloride) and hot metal greybody emissions. An algorithm has thus been developed to categorize target signatures based on their emission source components. The signatures are then partitioned, based on their emission components, into groups of similar emission characteristics. Using previous trial data, seven unique flare categories were defined. A second algorithm was finally developed to exploit this signature description and interrogate individual field measurements for target detection and categorization.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207