MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172261433 · doi:10.1109/igarss.1995.524176

Effect of pulse phase errors on the chirp scaling SAR processing algorithm

2002· article· en· W2172261433 on OpenAlexaff
G.W. Davidson, F.H. Wong, I. Cumming

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChirpAlgorithmComputer sciencePhase (matter)ScalingDoppler effectPulse (music)Synthetic aperture radarRange (aeronautics)OpticsPhysicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chirp scaling (CS) SAR processing algorithm uses the linear FM property of the transmitted pulses to provide accurate RCMC and thus obtain better image quality. However, when the transmitted pulse is not linear FM, or if the FM rate is not known exactly, processing errors due to chirp scaling will result. This paper presents the resulting processing error in the CS algorithm, given pulse phase errors that exceed those expected in current SAR systems. It was found that the CS algorithm is insensitive to phase errors of this magnitude, and gives slightly better focusing than the range/Doppler algorithm.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced SAR Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207