MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160813043 · doi:10.1190/geo2012-0236.1

Practical strategies for classification of unexploded ordnance

2012· article· en· W2160813043 on OpenAlexaff
Laurens Beran, B. C. Zelt, Leonard R. Pasion, Stephen Billings, Kevin Kingdon, Nicolas Lhomme, Lin‐Ping Song, D. W. Oldenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnexploded ordnanceClutterComputer scienceInversion (geology)Data miningData qualityData setSet (abstract data type)Field (mathematics)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Remote sensingMachine learningRadarGeologyEngineeringMathematicsMetric (unit)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have developed practical strategies for discriminating between buried unexploded ordnance (UXO) and metallic clutter. These methods are applicable to time-domain electromagnetic data acquired with multistatic, multicomponent sensors designed for UXO classification. Each detected target is characterized by dipole polarizabilities estimated via inversion of the observed sensor data. The polarizabilities are intrinsic target features and so are used to distinguish between UXO and clutter. We tested this processing with four data sets from recent field demonstrations, with each data set characterized by metrics of data and model quality. We then developed techniques for building a representative training data set and determined how the variable quality of estimated features affects overall classification performance. Finally, we devised a technique to optimize classification performance by adapting features during target prioritization.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207