MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591320430 · doi:10.1190/geo2016-0232.1

Optimizing electromagnetic sensors for unexploded ordnance detection

2017· article· en· W2591320430 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BC
FundersStrategic Environmental Research and Development Program
KeywordsUnexploded ordnanceClutterGround-penetrating radarRemote sensingComputer scienceDetection thresholdAzimuthStatistical powerMonte Carlo methodGeologyAcousticsArtificial intelligenceRadarOpticsReal-time computingStatisticsPhysicsMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time-domain electromagnetic (TEM) instruments are the predominant geophysical sensor for detection of buried unexploded ordnance (UXO). Detection surveys commonly use towed TEM sensor arrays to acquire a digital map for target detection. We use a dipolar model to predict a detection threshold for a UXO at a specified clearance depth, given an arbitrary sensor geometry. In general, the minimum target response is obtained for a horizontally oriented target. We find that for multistatic sensors, the minimum response can also depend on the azimuth of the target. By considering the statistics of the target response, we find that the detection threshold can be raised slightly while still ensuring a high probability of detection of UXO at depth. This increase in the detection threshold can have a significant effect on the number of false alarms that need to be interrogated or investigated and hence on the cost of clearance. We also use Monte Carlo simulation to investigate how array geometry and height affect clutter rejection.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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