MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997849783 · doi:10.1364/ao.43.001425

Passive remote monitoring of chemical vapors by differential Fourier-transform infrared radiometry: results at a range of 15 km

2004· article· en· W1997849783 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Marc Thériault, Eldon Puckrin, François Bouffard, Bernhard Déry

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Laser Applications
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiometryOpticsRemote sensingInfraredAtmospheric soundingInterferometryFourier transformRadiancePlumeMaterials scienceFourier transform infrared spectroscopyFourier transform spectroscopyEnvironmental sciencePhysicsMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method for the passive remote monitoring of chemical vapors by differential Fourier-transform infrared radiometry is presented to determine the characteristics of a chemical vapor plume from a stack located at a distance of more than 1 km from the sensor. This measurement technique is based on the use of a double-beam Fourier-transform infrared spectrometer that is optimized for optical subtraction. A description of the interferometer (compact atmospheric sounding interferometer) is given along with the algorithm (GASEM) that has been developed for the on-line detection, identification, and quantification of chemical vapor plumes. The detection method is described with a particular emphasis placed on its monitoring capabilities. The analysis focuses on the experimental results obtained at a recent open-air experiment for vapor plume mixtures of dimethyl methyl phosphonate and SF6 probed at a distance of 1.5 km. The accuracy of a simplified plume radiance model implemented in the detection algorithm is specifically addressed. The measurement technique has been successfully used to detect and identify low, medium, and high concentrations of vapor mixtures but appears to have limited quantification capabilities in its present form.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicSpectroscopy and Laser ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207