Unexploded ordnance discrimination using magnetic and electromagnetic sensors: Case study from a former military site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a study at a military range with the objective to discriminate potentially hazardous 4.2-inch mortars from nonhazardous shrapnel, range, and cultural debris, six different discrimination techniques were tested using data from an array of magnetometers, a time-domain electromagnetic induction (EMI) cart, an array of time-domain sensors, and a time-domain EMI cart with a wider measurement bandwidth. Discrimination was achieved using rule-based or statistical classification of feature vectors extracted from dipole or polarization tensor models fit to detected anomalies. For magnetics, the ranking by moment yielded better discrimination results than that of apparent remanence from relatively large remanent magnetizations of several of the seeded items. The magnetometer results produced very accurate depths and fewer failed fits attributable to noisy data or model insuffi-ciency. The EMI-based methods were more effective than the magnetometer for intrinsic discrimination ability. The higher signal-to-noise ratio, denser coverage, and more precise positioning of the EM-array data resulted in fewer false positives than the EMI cart. When depth constraints from the magnetometer data were used to constrain the EMI fits through cooperative inversion, discrimination performance improved considerably. The wide-band EMI sensor was deployed in a cued-interrogation mode over a subset of anomalies. This produced the highest-quality data because of collecting the densest data around each target and the additional late time-decay information available with the wide-band sensor. When the depth from the magnetometer was used as a constraint in the cooperative inversion process, all 4.2-inch mortars were recovered before any false positives were encountered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".