MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112161168 · doi:10.1186/s40623-015-0310-3

Application of ground scatter returns for calibration of HF interferometry data

2015· article· en· W2112161168 on OpenAlexafffund
Н. Нишитани, Alexey Oinats, Taishi Tsuya, J.‐P. St.‐Maurice

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Planets and Space · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyGovernment of Canada
KeywordsElevation (ballistics)InterferometryCalibrationRadarIonosphereRemote sensingGeologyGeodesyPhase (matter)PhysicsComputer scienceOpticsGeophysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information on the vertical angle of arrival (elevation) is crucial in determining propagation modes of high-frequency (HF, 3–30 MHz) radio waves travelling through the ionosphere. The most advanced network of ionospheric HF radars, SuperDARN (Super Dual Auroral Radar Network), relies on interferometry to measure elevation, but this information is rarely used due to intrinsic difficulties with phase calibration as well as with the physical interpretation of the measured elevation patterns. In this work, we propose an empirical method of calibration for SuperDARN interferometry. The method utilises a well-defined dependence of elevation on range of ground scatter returns. “Fine tuning” of the phase is achieved based on a detailed analysis of phase fluctuation effects at very low elevation angles. The proposed technique has been successfully applied to data from the mid-latitude Hokkaido East SuperDARN radar. It can also be used at any other installation that utilises HF interferometry.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Planets and SpaceSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207