MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555639935 · doi:10.1109/joe.2016.2615686

Striation Processing of Data From the 2013 Target and Reverberation Experiment (TREX13)

2016· article· en· W2555639935 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Scott Schecklman, Lisa M. Zurk

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval Research GlobalDefence Research and Development CanadaPennsylvania State University
KeywordsMarine mammals and sonarSonarClutterReverberationSignal processingSpectrogramSonar signal processingComputer scienceAcousticsRadarSynthetic aperture sonarArtificial intelligenceComputer visionSIGNAL (programming language)Doppler effectImage processingPhysicsTelecommunicationsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In active sonar processing, the discrimination of the target versus clutter can be a significant challenge. Whereas conventional processing often uses target kinematics to limit the possible target tracks, it has recently been shown that frequency domain information (based on the waveguide invariant principle) can also be incorporated to further limit the possible target tracks in an environmentally robust fashion. This paper presents physics-based signal processing methods to extract information about the target track from striations in a target spectrogram formed from the echo spectra at each active sonar pulse repetition interval. The target tracking information is formulated as a post-track likeliness statistic that is extracted from the sonar data with image processing techniques. Results are demonstrated with shallow water sonar data collected during the 2013 Target and Reverberation Experiment (TREX13). It is expected that the physics-based signal processing algorithms discussed here will provide enhanced clutter rejection and improve tracking performance.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Oceanic EngineeringSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207