MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124402531 · doi:10.1109/tim.2003.820442

Detection and Location of Connection Splice Events in Fiber Optics Given Noisy OTDR Data—Part II: R1MSDE Method

2004· article· en· W2124402531 on OpenAlexaff
Fangzhou Liu, C.J. Zarowski

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical time-domain reflectometerMinimum description lengthSubspace topologyMathematicsTime domainNoise (video)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEvent (particle physics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceOptical fiberFiber optic sensorPhysicsComputer visionTelecommunicationsPolarization-maintaining optical fiber

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Part I (Liu and Zarowski 2001), a method of connection splice event detection and location by the digital signal processing of noisy optical time-domain reflectometry data was given. It applied the Gabor series representation (GSR) for transient signal detection of Friedlander and Porat (1989) to the optical time-domain reflectometer (OTDR) data yielding Gabor coefficients. The Rissanen minimum description length (MDL) criterion was then applied to the Gabor coefficients to eliminate those that are most likely due to noise alone. The surviving coefficients are indexed in such a manner as to indicate the location of events in the OTDR data. Although this GSR/MDL method is computationally efficient, it only gives a coarse estimate of event location. Therefore, this paper (Part II) develops the rank-1 matched subspace detection and estimation algorithm that employs more computation to achieve a greater accuracy in event position estimation. It is based on the matched subspace detection theory of Scharf and Friedlander.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicOptical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207