MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132729582 · doi:10.5539/mas.v8n5p143

Parameters Estimation of LFMCW Signals Based on Periodic Fractional Fourier Transform

2014· article· en· W2132729582 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Analysis and Transform Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractional Fourier transformFourier transformAlgorithmEstimationComputer scienceMathematicsFourier analysisMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When using fractional Fourier transform (FrFT) to detect and estimate linear frequency-modulated continuous wave radar signals, two problems will appear: multiple peaks occur in FRFT image and the output SNR at the true parameter values does not increase when the observation time is longer than the signals period. A multiple period LFMCW signals parameters estimation method based on period FRFT (PFRFT) is studied in this paper. The PFRFT formula of multiple period LFMCW signals is given. The relationship among PFRFT output SNR, observation time and sample signals SNR is analyzed. The estimation accuracy formula of PFRFT is derived. At last, numerical simulation shows the effectiveness of the algorithm and PFRFT is superior to FRFT for estimating a multiple periods LFMCW signals.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.282 · 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