MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166792848 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2011.2112772

Incorporating Uncertainty in Unexploded Ordnance Discrimination

2011· article· en· W2166792848 on OpenAlexaff
Laurens Beran, Stephen Billings, D. W. Oldenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnexploded ordnanceMaxima and minimaContext (archaeology)Posterior probabilityComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProbability density functionPattern recognition (psychology)Bayesian probabilityMathematicsData miningStatisticsRemote sensingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine representations of feature vector uncertainty in the context of unexploded ordnance (UXO) discrimination with electromagnetic data. We compare a local uncertainty estimate derived from the curvature of the misfit function with global estimates of the model posterior probability density (PPD) obtained with Markov chain sampling. For well-posed experiments (i.e., with high SNR and adequate spatial coverage), the two methods of uncertainty appraisal agree. However, when the inverse problem is ill posed, we find out that the PPD can be multimodal. To incorporate these uncertainties in discrimination, we first develop an extension of discriminant analysis which integrates over the posterior distribution of the model. When dealing with multimodal PPDs, we show that an effective solution is to input all modes of the PPD-corresponding to all models at local minima of the misfit-into discrimination and, then, to classify on the basis of the model which is most likely a UXO.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207