MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wavelet-based estimator versus spectral correlation method for acoustic target sizing

2009· article· en· W2070747584 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Angel Scipioni, Pascal Rischette, Patrick Schweitzer, Jérôme Mathieu

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEcho Foundation
KeywordsSizingEstimatorWaveletCorrelationAcousticsComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents two different methods for estimating the diameter of an immersed wire insonified by an ultrasonic plane wave. The first part of the backscattered echo, called the quasi-rigid backscattered echo (QRBE), and the quasi-rigid form function (QRFF) are described first. It is shown that the QRBE contains the size information (diameter) of the target. In the first method, this size is obtained by associating a pattern recognition procedure with a spectral correlation. The second method is based on a continuous wavelet analysis of the QRBE at a particular scale with a judiciously selected wavelet. After a brief description of the wavelet tool, we present in detail the wavelet-based approach for target sizing. Results thus obtained are compared with experimental measurements using copper and steel wires. They show that for the largest diameters, the results are similar. On the other hand, the more the diameter decreases, the more the wavelet-based estimator is distinguished by giving a better relative precision. In terms of the cost of calculation, the second method is better since it requires only one wavelet transform at only one single scale against a Fourier transform and an iterative correlation procedure, necessary in the first technique.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement Science and TechnologySame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207