MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125265086 · doi:10.1109/milcom.1992.244007

Comparison of two FFT-based demodulation schemes for M-ary FSK

2003· article· en· W2125265086 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
TopicPAPR reduction in OFDM
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrequency-shift keyingDemodulationBinFast Fourier transformComputer scienceAlgorithmScheme (mathematics)Power (physics)Discrete Fourier transform (general)MathematicsFourier transformTelecommunicationsFourier analysisFractional Fourier transformPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examine the relative performance of two detection schemes for FFT (fast Fourier transform) demodulation of M-ary FSK (frequency shift keying). Specifically, they study the relative merits of detection based on a single bin power (scheme A) or powers from two bins (scheme B). Theoretical expressions for the error probabilities are derived for both schemes and verified by simulation. The conclusion is that scheme A is better at low offsets, up to about a third of the bin width, while scheme B is better at higher offsets. However, since summing bin powers requires additional computations, detection based on a single bin power is the recommended approach.< <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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPAPR reduction in OFDMFrench-language works237,207