MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229933312 · doi:10.4133/1.2923521

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Varying Transmitter Waveforms for UXO Detection in Magnetic Soil Environments

2005· article· en· W4229933312 on OpenAlexaff
Leonard R. Pasion, Sean E. Walker, Douglas W. Oldenburg, Stephen Billings, John F. Foley

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2005 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmitterWaveformRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceAcousticsGeologyTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic soils are a major source of false positives when searching for landmines or unexploded ordnance (UXO) with electromagnetic induction sensors. In adverse areas up to 30% of identified electromagnetic (EM) anomalies are attributed to geology. The EM phenomena that give rise to the response of magnetically viscous soil and metal are fundamentally different. The viscosity effects of magnetic soil can be accurately modelled by assuming a ferrite relaxation with a log‐uniform distribution of time constants. The EM response of a metallic target is due to eddy currents induced in the target and is a function of the target's size, shape, conductivity and magnetic susceptibility. In this presentation, we compare the range and variation of time decays of metallic targets (UXO and scrap metal) with the time domain electromagnetic response of magnetically viscous ground. Electromagnetic sensor measurements and modelling are used to assess the feasibility of multiple pulse widths to differentiate the ground response from metallic targets. We present ground and metal responses measured by Geonics EM61‐MK2 sensors with differing transmitter waveform characteristics.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2005Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207