MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886541590 · doi:10.1029/2017rs006492

Calibrating SuperDARN Interferometers Using Meteor Backscatter

2018· article· en· W2886541590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Chisham

Bibliographic record

VenueRadio Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsBackscatter (email)GeologyIonosphereRemote sensingGeodesyRadarCalibrationGeolocationInterferometryGeophysicsComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accurate geolocation of ionospheric backscatter measured by the Super Dual Auroral Radar Network (SuperDARN) high‐frequency radars is critical for the integrity of polar ionospheric convection maps, which involve combining SuperDARN line‐of‐sight velocity measurements originating from multiple locations. Geolocation requires estimation of the propagation paths of the high‐frequency radio signal to and from the scattering volume. The SuperDARN radars comprise both a main and interferometer antenna array to allow the estimation of the elevation angle of arrival of the returning signal, and hence its most likely propagation path. However, over the history of operation of SuperDARN (>20 years) elevation angle data have not been routinely used owing to problems with the calibration of phase difference measurements. Instead, virtual height models have been used to estimate the most likely propagation paths, and these are often of limited accuracy. Here we present a method for calibrating SuperDARN interferometer measurements using backscatter from meteor trails measured in the near field‐of‐view of the SuperDARN radars. We present estimates of calibration factors for the SuperDARN radar in Saskatoon, Canada, at different temporal resolutions: 3 months, 10 days, and 1 day. The calibration factor varies over the 9‐year interval studied, such that employing a single value for the whole interval would lead to significant errors in elevation angle measurements at times. The higher‐resolution results show the ability of the technique to determine the calibration factor routinely at a high time resolution.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadio ScienceSame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207