MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107617581 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1993.332286

The DREO Electronic Warfare Engagement Simulation Facility

2002· article· en· W2107617581 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Launch and Propulsion Technology
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJammingElectronic warfareRadarRadar jamming and deceptionAnechoic chamberComputer scienceRadar lock-onElectronic countermeasureRadar engineering detailsEngineeringRadar imagingPulse-Doppler radarTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Electronic Warfare Engagement Simulation Facility (EWESF) is a research facility used at the Defence Research Establishment Ottawa (DREO) to assess the performance of electronic warfare systems. The facility is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of radar jamming hardware and jamming techniques using a hardware-in-the-loop configuration. Actual radar jamming equipment is interfaced to the facility and is stimulated by radar signals from a victim radar. The jammer response to the threat radar signal is radiated into the EWESF anechoic chamber to degrade the performance of the radar. The radar performance can be monitored and the jamming techniques can be modified until a technique design is obtained which maximizes the radar degradation. This paper describes the basic design and operation of the EWESF.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · 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