MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758627514 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2017.2747404

Subgridded FDTD Modeling of Ground Penetrating Radar Scenarios Beyond the Courant Stability Limit

2017· article· en· W2758627514 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiao‐Kun Wei, Xingqi Zhang, Nectaria Diamanti, Wei Shao, Costas D. Sarris

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodGround-penetrating radarLossy compressionStability (learning theory)Limit (mathematics)RadarComputer scienceOverhead (engineering)Finite difference methodDispersion (optics)AlgorithmOpticsPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an efficient 3-D finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) subgridding scheme that is free of the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy stability condition, for the modeling of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) scenarios in lossy dispersive media. Spatial filtering of FDTD fields within the subgrid is employed to render the time step independent of the cell size in the fine-cell subgrids. This process is applied with minimal modification of the original FDTD code, no implicit operations, and very modest computational overhead. Moreover, multiterm dispersion is included to model practical GPR scenarios involving the detection of realistic scatterers within dispersive soil. Several numerical examples are provided to demonstrate the potential of the proposed method as a powerful GPR modeling tool.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207