MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159794335 · doi:10.1109/radar.2008.4720900

Wavefront reconstruction of 3D cylindrical subsurface radar imagery: A study on synthetic phantoms

2008· article· en· W2159794335 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Flores‐Tapia, Gabriel Thomas, Stephen Pistorius

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadarRadar imagingGeologyTrajectoryRemote sensingGround-penetrating radarWavefrontComputer scienceContinuous-wave radarComputer visionIterative reconstructionRange (aeronautics)Artificial intelligenceOpticsMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the use of radar technology has been proposed in a wide range of subsurface imaging applications. Traditionally, linear scan trajectories are used to acquire data in most subsurface radar scenarios. However, novel subsurface radar applications, such as breast microwave imaging and wood inspection, require the use of non linear scan trajectories in order to adjust to the geometry of the scanned area. This paper proposes a novel reconstruction algorithm for subsurface radar data acquired along 3D cylindrical scan trajectories. The spectrum of the collected data is processed in order to locate the spatial origin of the target reflections and remove the spreading of the target reflections which results from the different signal travel times along the scan trajectory. The proposed algorithm was tested using experimental data sets, yielding promising results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207