MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126386872 · doi:10.1109/aps.1996.549921

Underground target probing using FDTD

2002· article· en· W2126386872 on OpenAlexaff
P. Luneau, G.Y. Delisle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodDetectorUltra high frequencyDipoleFinite difference methodGround-penetrating radarField (mathematics)Discrete dipole approximationComputer scienceWavelengthRadarOpticsPhysicsAcousticsScatteringMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Great interest has been paid to the detection and characterization of subsurface radar targets. Most results were obtained using quasi-ideal conditions due to the complexity of the problem. If the medium in which the target is embedded is inhomogeneous or contains other scatterers, analytical methods fail to predict the scattered field. Furthermore, the most interesting quantity that can be measured is the near field since the detector must be placed as close as possible to the air-ground interface. Another problem is the fact that the electrical size of the targets is usually equal to or smaller than the wavelength inside the medium. The finite-difference time-domain method is very well suited to this particular application because complex geometries may be treated without increasing the computational burden. This paper shows how the FDTD method can be used to model the field scattered by canonical subsurface targets. A UHF dipole detector is also included in the model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.256
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207