Optimal Layout of a Bistatic Radar Network
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bistatic Doppler radar networks have become in the last five years a viable and inexpensive alternative to multiple-Doppler networks. In this study, the optimization of the layout of a bistatic network is analyzed. The main parameters determining the criteria for the maximization of data quality are (i) variance of the wind component perpendicular to the one measured by the monostatic radar, (ii) received power, (iii) resolution of the sampled volume, and (iv) sidelobe contamination. A location index is defined in such a way that optimization of these four parameters can be carried out simultaneously. Two different approaches are discussed: 1) it is supposed that the location of the bistatic receiver is given and the area of high quality coverage is investigated, and 2) a region of interest is defined and the optimal location of a bistatic receiver is sought. Sidelobe contamination is a serious problem, irrespective of the receiver's location. The deployment of more than one passive receiver increases the extent of the dual-Doppler area but, unfortunately, does not significantly reduce the problem of sidelobe contamination. A rule of thumb for the deployment of a bistatic network is 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it