MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008824663 · doi:10.1109/taes.2006.314590

Separation of target rigid body and micro-doppler effects in ISAR imaging

2006· article· en· W2008824663 on OpenAlexaff
Ljubiša Stanković, Igor Djurović, T. Thayaparan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverse synthetic aperture radarSynthetic aperture radarRadarRadar imagingComputer scienceRigid bodyComputer visionDoppler effectArtificial intelligenceAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micro-Doppler (m-D) effect is caused by moving parts of the radar target. It can cover rigid parts of a target and degrade the inverse synthetic aperture radar (ISAR) image. Separation of the patterns caused by stationary parts of the target from those caused by moving (rotating or vibrating) parts is the topic of this paper. Two techniques for separation of the rigid part from the rotating parts have been proposed. The first technique is based on time-frequency (TF) representation with sliding window and order statistics techniques. The first step in this technique is recognition of rigid parts in the range/cross-range plane. In the second step, reviewed TF representation and order statistics setup are employed to obtain signals caused by moving parts. The second technique can be applied in the case of very emphatic m-D effect. In the first step the rotating parts are recognized, based on the inverse Radon transform (RT). After masking these patterns, a radar image with the rigid body reflection can be obtained. The proposed methods are illustrated by examples

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations141
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic SystemsSame topicAdvanced SAR Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207