MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2230206282 · doi:10.1049/iet-rsn.2015.0098

Parametric texture estimation and prediction using measured sea clutter data

2015· article· en· W2230206282 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith Ing, Mark R. Morelande, Sofia Suvorova, Bill Moran

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Radar Sonar & Navigation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilOffice of ScienceAsian Office of Aerospace Research and Development
KeywordsClutterParametric statisticsTexture (cosmology)EstimationParametric modelArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSemiparametric modelPattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMathematicsEngineeringRadarImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the authors present a deterministic parametric sea clutter texture model for high‐resolution radar backscatter at low‐grazing angles in the open ocean. The clutter texture forms a component of the compound‐Gaussian sea clutter model and they exploit the spatiotemporal relationships in the clutter by relating it to its physical source: sea swell. They present an efficient algorithm for the estimation of the spectral components for the parametric texture model through the estimation of two‐dimensional (2D) ‘tones’ across contiguous range bins instead of a series of 1D estimates as is used elsewhere. Validation is performed by comparing the predictive fit for their estimator with a series of temporal estimators and a non‐parametric estimator using measured sea clutter data from the Atlantic Ocean recorded by the Intelligent PIXel (IPIX) radar of McMaster University in Canada. Implementation of the spatiotemporal estimator results in a more parsimonious estimate with improved reliability due to the increased separation of the tones in 2D space. Their results are shown to agree with an established physical model for the sea swell.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Radar Sonar & NavigationSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207