MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552608103 · doi:10.1017/9781316556115.003

The history of radar in atmospheric investigations

2016· book-chapter· en· W2552608103 on OpenAlexaff
W. K. Hocking, J. Röttger, Robert D. Palmer, Toru Sato, Phillip B. Chilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistory and Developments in Astronomy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadarAtmosphere (unit)Atmospheric researchMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingGeologyGeographyEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The groundwork describing the atmospheric environment and the types of flows that radar can study in the Earth's atmosphere has been laid in the previous chapter. We now turn to a brief history of how radars came to be involved with studies of this type. While most of this book is about MST radar, it is important that MST radar be seen in a broader context. We therefore begin this section on the history of the development of MST radar by looking not at MST radar itself, but rather at the development of meteorological radar. As indicated earlier, the period following World War II saw various developments of radar. Two primary streams were (i) ionospheric studies for world-wide communication, and (ii) studies of contaminants in radar detection for military and civil applications. The first stream of development led to extensive studies of the upper atmosphere and ionosphere, and the second led to more intensive investigations of the troposphere. Only with the development of MST radar did the two streams once again really merge. Initially, there were two main aspects to radar detection – determination of range and, if possible, direction. Directional determination was achieved by using large antennas which concentrated the radar directionally, and range was generally found using timeof- flight delays. The atmospheric radar principle for range-detection is basically fairly straightforward. A short pulse of an electromagnetic wave of typically several microseconds duration is transmitted from the radar antenna, whereupon it eventually may strike a target. It is then scattered back from the target to the radar antenna. The receive signal is called an echo, by analogy with the sound heard when your voice echoes from a distant object. Multiple radar echoes can be detected if there are multiple targets. Echo samples are examined at consecutive time steps. Using early radars, this was done visually, whereas with more recent ones, digital sampling is used. Since the radar signal propagates with the speed of light c , the time t elapsed from the transmission of the pulse to the reception corresponds to a given range r = ct /2. We find, as an example, that echoes from backscattering targets at a range of, say 15 km, are received 100 microseconds after the pulse was transmitted. Echo samples are taken at a series of successive delays, called range gates.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicHistory and Developments in AstronomyFrench-language works237,207