Dispatching of Coordinated Proximity Sensors for Object Surveillance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents a method of selecting and positioning groups of sensors in a coordinated manner for the surveillance of a maneuvering object The object trajectory is discretized into a number of demand instants (data acquisition times) to which groups of sensors are assigned, respectively. Heuristic rules are used to evaluate the suitability of each sensor for servicing (observing) a demand instant, determine the composition of the sensor group, and, in the case of dynamic sensors, specify the position of each sensor with respect to the object This approach aims to improve the quality of the surveillance data in three ways: (1) the assigned sensors are maneuvered into “optimal” sensing positions, (2) the uncertainty of the measured data is mitigated through sensor fusion, and (3) the poses of the unassigned sensors are adjusted to ensure that sensing-system can react to object maneuvers. Simulations with proximity sensors demonstrate the advantages of dispatching dynamic sensors over similar static-sensor systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it