MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046699224 · doi:10.1117/12.666790

Validation of ShipIR (v3.2): methodology and results

2006· article· en· W2046699224 on OpenAlexaffabout
David A. Vaitekunas

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNavyRadiosondeKey (lock)Computer scienceMarine engineeringScale (ratio)AeronauticsSimulationAerospace engineeringMeteorologySystems engineeringReliability engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringComputer securityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The naval ship infrared signature model and naval threat countermeasure simulator (ShipIR/NTCS) developed by W.R. Davis Engineering Ltd has undergone extensive validation since its adoption as a NATO-standard, and has been accredited by the US Navy for Live Fire Test and Evaluation of the DDG class warship, Preliminary Design of the DD(X) destroyer, and Contract Design and Live Fire Test and Evaluation of DD(X). Validation has played a key role in the model development by assessing current accuracy, identifying key areas of improvement, and tracking achievements made by each new release. This paper describes some of the recent improvements in full-ship infrared (IR) signature measurement and model prediction based on the measurements and predictions of an unclassified Canadian research vessel (CFAV Quest). The results show how some of the more recent trial parameters: radiosonde input, ship surface optical properties, atmosphere-scattered solar irradiation, and large-scale Reynolds Number; have affected our model predictions and accuracy.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.263
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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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