MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004543061 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2013.2295653

Effect of Grid Boundary Expansion to Include One Additional Data Source on Ionospheric Imaging Accuracy

2014· article· en· W2004543061 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Burston, P. T. Jayachandran

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAtlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Bath
KeywordsVoxelGridBoundary (topology)Computer scienceAlgorithmAzimuthRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceGeologyGeometryMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four-dimensional ray tomography of ionospheric electron concentration using the Global Navigation Satellite System data is now a well-established technique. Since its advent, there have been a few studies of practical principles for optimizing crucial yet basic aspects of the problem for real experiments. For instance, optimal grid boundaries, voxel numbers, and voxel sizes must be determined case by case. This experiment examines the consequences of a small (mF2) parameter is compared with independent measurements from an Incoherent Scatter Radar (ISR) over a 12-month period, the expansion of the grid to include the extra data improves the accuracy of the imaging algorithm, regardless of which internal division definition is used. A convolution technique is used to obtain quantitative information about the differences between algorithm runs with different internal divisions and boundaries and the observed ISR values. Examination of the distribution of observed and reconstructed NmF2 values shows that the imaging algorithm does not produce as many low-valued results as the observed data.

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)0.028
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207