MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106992249 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1345330

A comparative study of FFT-summation and polyphase-FFT CFAR detectors

2004· article· en· W2106992249 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
TopicAdvanced Electrical Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFast Fourier transformPolyphase systemComputer scienceDetectorNarrowbandSignal processingBandwidth (computing)Electronic engineeringAlgorithmDigital signal processingTelecommunicationsComputer hardwareEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A priori knowledge of the signal channelization and bandwidth can be used to design efficient signal processing strategies for the detection of narrowband signals. Approaches based on digital filter banks are particularly attractive since a large number of channels can be searched in parallel. A simple and computationally efficient idea involves the use of an FFT that has been designed so that each FFT bin corresponds to a channel. The performance limitations of the FFT detector can be resolved by processing longer signal data records using the polyphase-FFT. An alternative idea for improving detection performance involves increasing the FFT length so that the signal power in each channel is obtained by summing the power computed for two or more FFT bins. This FFT-summation detector offers greater flexibility in the allowable channelization schemes and can provide performance characteristics similar to those of the polyphase-FFT detector.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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