MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008732642 · doi:10.5515/kjkiees.2017.28.9.723

Simplified Factorizing-Technique for Airborne FMCW-SAR Image Reconstruction

2017· article· en· W3008732642 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 Journal of Korean Institute of Electromagnetic Engineering and Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)University of Manitoba
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceBeamwidthComputer visionInverse synthetic aperture radarImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceProjection (relational algebra)Computational complexity theoryBack projectionRemote sensingRadar imagingAlgorithmRadarGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simplified factorizing-technique to improve the efficiency on computational procedure and the complexity of the conventional back-projection algorithm, which is used to reconstruct airborne FMCW-SAR image, is suggested, and the reconstruction process of SAR image by this simplified factorizing-technique are presented in this paper. This technique can be efficiently applied to airborne FMCW-SAR having a relatively narrow beamwidth and long synthetic aperture length, and its basic rationale is to exclude the data that has low level of contribution during computational procedure. Using the raw data of practical airborne FMCW-SAR system, performances of this proposed technique such as SAR image quality and processing time were compared and analyzed.

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)0.001
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 score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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