MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190444827 · doi:10.1049/rsn2.12080

Two‐dimensional transmit arrays for polar over‐the‐horizon radar

2021· article· en· W3190444827 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

VenueIET Radar Sonar & Navigation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadar Systems and Signal Processing
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadarPolarOver-the-horizon radarHorizonRemote sensingComputer scienceGeologyGeodesyMathematicsTelecommunicationsPhysicsGeometryAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two‐dimensional (2‐D) transmit arrays offer many advantages over traditional over‐the‐horizon radar (OTHR) arrays, including the capability to steer and mitigate auroral clutter, a clutter type prevalent in polar operation, in all azimuth and elevation directions. The approaches of previous studies on OTHR 2‐D transmit arrays are considered suboptimal, but it can be shown that the 2‐D array is an effective OTHR transmitter when operated in an appropriate manner. A reference system derived from publicly available information on an operational OTHR array is used as a benchmark to compare the performance of various 2‐D OTHR transmit systems with respect to effective isotropic radiated power on target, sidelobe levels, and elevation selectivity.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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