MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947727626 · doi:10.1190/tle38060453.1

Understanding the use of ground-penetrating radar for assessing clandestine tunnel detection

2019· article· en· W2947727626 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

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarRadarFocus (optics)Noise (video)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Remote sensingKey (lock)Field (mathematics)Computer securityGeologyArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We provide a coherent approach for developing an understanding of how and where ground-penetrating radar (GPR) can be deployed for tunnel detection. While tunnels in general are of interest, the more specific focus is tunnels that are hand dug or created with a minimal amount of equipment and resources for clandestine purposes. Determining whether GPR can be used for tunnel detection is impossible without an in-depth knowledge of the operational environment and constraints. To effectively address the question, we define the general characteristics of clandestine tunnels, discuss how to estimate the responses amplitude, define the dominant noise types associated with GPR data, and point out how those factors are affected by the GPR system. The key aspects are illustrated using a controlled field case study.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.117 · 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