MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058339336 · doi:10.1049/ip-rsn:20050003

Fast versus slow scan radar operation for coherent small target detection in sea clutter

2005· article· en· W2058339336 on OpenAlexaff
M. McDonald, Samantha Lycett

Bibliographic record

VenueIEE Proceedings - Radar Sonar and Navigation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadar Systems and Signal Processing
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterDetectorStationary target indicationDwell timeRadarTime delay and integrationRadar detectionRadar imagingConstant false alarm rateMoving target indicationRadar horizonRemote sensingComputer scienceLow probability of intercept radarOpticsArtificial intelligenceContinuous-wave radarPhysicsComputer visionGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small maritime surface targets can be difficult to distinguish from sea clutter in radar backscattered signals, but discrimination may be improved by using coherent detectors within the dwell time of a scanning radar. Non-coherent integration, coherent integration, the Kelly detector and the adaptive linear quadratic detector are considered. Target detectability may also be improved by combining the results of a single dwell across multiple scans. Overall target detection times of 2, 5 and 10 s are considered and the trade-off between within-scan dwell time and multiple scan processing gain is investigated. Analysis of high-range-resolution coherent X-band data of small boats reveals that faster scan rates with corresponding shorter dwell times provide improved target detection performance over slower scan rates and longer dwell times.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEE Proceedings - Radar Sonar and NavigationSame topicRadar Systems and Signal ProcessingFrench-language works237,207