MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594622404 · doi:10.1109/antem.2004.7860667

Polarimetric bistatic GPR imaging and detection of landmines in the near field with the “Vampire Effect”

2004· article· en· W2594622404 on OpenAlexaff
Michael W. Phelan, Joe LoVetri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterGround-penetrating radarComputer sciencePolarimetryConstant false alarm rateComputer visionBandwidth (computing)Orientation (vector space)Filter (signal processing)Ground planeArtificial intelligenceObject detectionRemote sensingVampirePhysicsAcousticsRadarOpticsGeologyAntenna (radio)TelecommunicationsPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GPR images invariably suffer from a bandwidth restriction due to the low pass characteristics of the air-ground interface and are usually not clear enough to differentiate between what is a landmine and what is harmless clutter. The presence of clutter in the subsurface therefore contributes to high false alarm rates when landmine detection schemes are attempted. A landmine detection algorithm based on the vampire signature has been proposed and has been tested to verify its validity. The method involves the construction of a spatial filter from polarimetric data in order to enhance objects that exhibit the vampire effect while suppressing objects that do not. So far, the method has several significant limitations, most notably that the position and orientation of the symmetric scatters is strictly confined to be directly below the SAR path and that the target symmetry planes must include both antennas as well as the scan path. In this paper, the effects of off-centered measurements whereby the antennas are not necessarily contained in the target symmetry plane are discussed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207