MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163306495 · doi:10.1109/radar.2002.1174645

Bistatic radar denial by spatial waveform diversity

2003· article· en· W2163306495 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadar Systems and Signal Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBistatic radarComputer scienceRadarContinuous-wave radarClutterSIGNAL (programming language)Passive radarRadar engineering detailsWaveformFire-control radarMasking (illustration)Electronic engineeringRadar imagingTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to introduce and evaluate a number of techniques to prevent a radar being used by an adversary as a bistatic illuminator of opportunity. These are all based on the idea of radiating a so-called "masking signal" which is arranged to be orthogonal, both in a spatial sense and in a coding sense, to the radar signal, and of a level sufficient to mask the radar signal to an adversary, and hence to deny a reference for bistatic operation. The overall performance of the scheme is quantified in terms of two parameters: (i) the degree of masking of the radar signal by the masking signal, and (ii) the degree of suppression of echoes (from targets or from clutter) of the masking signal in the channels of the radar receiver. The choice of waveforms is considered, followed by a description of two approaches to the choice of radiation patterns, and then the results of some simulations of the overall performance are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadar Systems and Signal ProcessingFrench-language works237,207