MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2193472931 · doi:10.1117/12.2194876

Polarimetric active imaging in dense fog

2015· article· en· W2193472931 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Bernier, Xiaoying Cao, Grégoire Tremblay, G. Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarimetryRemote sensingComputer scienceGeologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Operation under degraded visual environment (DVE) presents important strategic advantages. 3D mapping has been performed under DVE and good quality images have been obtained through DVE with active imaging systems. In these applications, the presence of fog clouds degrades the quality of the remotely sensed signal or even renders the operation totally impossible. In view of making the active imaging method more robust against dense fog, the use of polarimetry is herein studied. Spherical particles typical of fog do not depolarize incident polarized light in the backscattering (180°) direction. So, in principle, there should be less dazzling caused by aerosols for active imaging systems operating using the secondary polarization. However, strong depolarization still occurs at angles close to 180°. The greater the ratio of size to wavelength, the closer to 180° will the depolarization occur. When the cloud optical depth is small, the major scattering events seen by an active camera are the single backscattering events. However, when the optical depth of the cloud is higher than 1, multiple scattering becomes more important and causes depolarization due to the backscattering around 180°. The physics of this process will be discussed. Experimental results supporting the analysis will be presented. Those experimental results were obtained under controlled environment using the DRDC-Valcartier aerosol chamber. The experimental method herein proposed is based upon the use of ICCD range gated cameras wherein gate width and gate location may be varied on the fly. The optimal conditions for the use of these devices in view of obtaining the best image contrast are experimentally studied and reported in this paper.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→