MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2159282950 · doi:10.1109/mdsp.1991.639351

Motion Analysis Of Radar Targets

2005· article· en· W2159282950 on OpenAlexaff
Shikhar Mann, S. Haykin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRadarSignal processingTime–frequency analysisDoppler effectAccelerationFilter (signal processing)AcousticsComputer visionArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our problem of identifying iceberg fragments in marine radar, we have previously applied Gabor’s expansion of a signal onto a set of Gaussian windowed sinusoids (Gabor functions). A somewhat sinusoidal signature in time-frequency space characterized the near circular movement of any floating object under the influence of ocean waves. Methods based on an adaptive version of this time-frequency processing have been shown[l] to track this sinusoidal nonstationarity and thus were very effective for detecting wave driven objects. An even better means of performing the detection, using “chirplets” was later developed[2]. The dynamics of the motion were modeled, first by a constant acceleration (expansion on windowed linear FM basis functions), then by an expansion onto a set of sinusoidal chirplets. (The sound of a police siren is a member of this set of bases). The sinusoidal chirplet model embodies the linear chirplet as a special case. Ordinary range-based processing assumes a piecewise stationary underlying model. The sliding window Doppler Fourier processing, assumes a more general underlying model, namely that of piecewise constant velocity. The linear chirplet generalizes further to constant acceleration. Finally the sinusoidal chirplet matches the physics’ of floating objects very closely and provides the best performance. Each one embodies the previous ones as special cases. We compare our new methods of Doppler processing with spatiotemporal processing[3]. Doppler processing is more suited to objects, such as icebergs, which remain within the same range cell for an extended period of time, while the spatiotemporal processing is more suitable for objects, such as ships, which move through multiple range cells.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→