MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047269703 · doi:10.1109/aspaa.2009.5346513

Theoretical and practical comparisons of the reassignment method and the derivative method for the estimation of the frequency slope

2009· preprint· en· W2047269703 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Electrical Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquivalence (formal languages)Derivative (finance)AlgorithmEstimationMathematicsContext (archaeology)SIGNAL (programming language)Second derivativeComputer scienceFrequency analysisApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisGeologyEngineeringDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of non-stationary sinusoidal analysis, the theoretical comparison of the reassignment method (RM) and the derivative method (DM) for the estimation of the frequency slope is investigated. It is shown that for the estimation of the frequency slope the DM differs from the RM in that it does not consider the group delay. Theoretical equivalence is shown to be possible with a refinement of the DM. This refinement is evaluated on synthetic signals and shown to improve the estimation of the frequency slope. The differences between the two methods in terms of window and signal constraints are discussed to show when each method is more appropriate to use.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.326 · 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