The Second-Order Bistatic High-Frequency Radar Cross Section of Ocean Surface for an Antenna on a Floating Platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. The 2nd-order bistatic high-frequency radar cross section of ocean surface is derived for the case of a fixed receiver and a floating transmitter. The 2nd-order radar cross section contains both the hydrodynamic contribution and the electromagnetic contribution. The 2nd-order hydrodynamic contribution is obtained based on the 1st-order bistatic model with antenna motion. The derivation of the 2nd-order electromagnetic contribution begins with a general expression for the bistatically received 2nd-order electric field for the case of a floating antenna. A new bistatic electromagnetic coupling coefficient, which, unlike some earlier versions, produces no nonphysical singularities in the radar cross section, is derived. The new bistatic radar cross section model is verified by comparing it with that of a monostatic swaying antenna case and that of the bistatic case without antenna motion. The effect of platform motion on simulated Doppler spectra is considered for a variety of sea states and operating frequencies. The motion-induced 2nd-order peaks appearing in the spectrum are seen to have significantly less energy than those in the 1st-order case.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".