MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098987141 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2011.2167978

Quantitative Analysis and Interpretation of Transient Electromagnetic Data via Principal Component Analysis

2011· article· en· W2098987141 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Andy Kass, Yaoguo Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Army Corps of EngineersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisUnexploded ordnanceNoise (video)Covariance matrixComputer scienceCovarianceSignal processingPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceData miningRemote sensingAlgorithmGeologyMathematicsStatisticsDigital signal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transient electromagnetic (TEM) data in applied geophysics are invariably contaminated by random and coherent noise associated with acquisition, geology, and the environment. Advanced unexploded ordnance (UXO) detection and discrimination using TEM data require the suppression of the random noise and reliable separation of UXO signal from other coherent signals. The random noise is usually easier to remove, with coherent signal being more difficult to identify as well as separate. We have developed a method based on principal component analysis (PCA) to achieve both objectives. As a data-adaptive linear transformation, PCA is a fast and reliable method for the removal of random uncorrelated noise as well as for the separation of coherent undesired signals from those due to UXO and UXO-like anomalies. In this paper, we outline the PCA method, including the choice of data organization, construction of covariance matrices, and choice of principal components in reconstruction. We then show both synthetic and field data as examples of the efficacy of the method.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.268
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 designOther design
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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207