MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W336873165

CAMEVAL-2002 Land Forces Signature Reduction Trial: Ground Truthing, Calibration and Multi-Sensor Data Acquisition for DRDC Experiments

2002· article· en· W336873165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeff Secker, Ryan A. English, M.L. Yeremy

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCamouflageRemote sensingGround truthCalibrationGeographyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CAMEVAL-2002 Land Forces Signature Reduction (LFSR) trial was conducted at the Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Petawawa in June 2002. For the LFSR trial, 27 military vehicles (primarily Leopard C2 tanks and Coyote reconnaissance vehicles) were deployed under forest canopy, along tree lines and in open field. A subset of the Leopards and Coyotes was deployed with a trial camouflage screen, another subset was covered with the current in-service camouflage, and a final subset was left uncovered. During the LFSR trial, Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Ottawa and DRDC Valcartier acquired airborne and spaceborne Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery and airborne Hyperspectral Imagery (HSI) data over the trial sites, and conducted extensive calibration and ground truthing activities in support of these acquisitions. This report documents the SAR and HSI data acquisition, ground truthing and calibration activities completed during the trial, thereby providing the foundation for any future analyses that use these multi-sensor data. This report also describes the five DRDC Ottawa and DRDC Valcartier analyses that were planned at the time of the trial.

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)0.001
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.281
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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC)Same topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207