MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075049741 · doi:10.1109/radar.2013.6585978

Radar cross section modeling and measurement of electric detonators

2013· article· en· W2075049741 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
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPulsed Power Technology Applications
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetonatorExplosive materialRadar cross-sectionCasingRadarAcousticsRange (aeronautics)Mode (computer interface)Cross section (physics)Common-mode signalComputer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysicsElectronic engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) pose a significant hazard to allied forces. Effective countermeasures should exploit components that are commonly found in IEDs. This paper presents the computer modeling and measurement of the monostatic radar cross section (RCS) of one of these components, the electric hot-wire detonator. Results indicate that the common mode associated with the detonator's casing and lead wires provides the largest RCS contribution, ranging between -22 and -16 dBsm in the 3-10 GHz frequency range. Although a differential mode can be excited between the lead wires, its contribution to the monostatic RCS is negligible. The effectiveness of twisting the lead wires to reduce the RCS is also investigated.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPulsed Power Technology ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207