MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321995300 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-9724

A new algorithm to separate meteor trail echoes from ionospheric radar scatter

2023· preprint· en· W4321995300 on OpenAlexaffabout
Magnus F. Ivarsen, G. C. Hussey, Adam Lozinsky, Draven Galeschuk, Brian Pitzel, K. A. McWilliams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadarIonosphereMeteoroidMeteor (satellite)Incoherent scatterRemote sensingGeologyAlgorithmComputer scienceGeophysicsMeteorologyPhysicsTelecommunicationsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coherent scatter echoes from meteors entering Earth’s atmosphere and those from the ionospheric E-region overlap: echoes of both types are seen at altitudes between 95 km -105 km. The physical origin of plasma irregularities produced by disintegrating meteors naturally differ from that of ionospheric turbulence, and there is a need to distinguish between the two types of echoes. We present a novel algorithm to automatically sort through arbitrarily large datasets of radar echoes with accurate location data, classifying each echo as either meteoric or ionospheric in origin. The algorithm establishes a definition of clustering, in both time and space. We use data from ICEBEAR 3D, an experimental coherent scatter radar in Saskatchewan, Canada. We discuss the two classes of scatter echoes, and present statistical results from 2020, 2021. In future experiments, our proposed algorithm can be applied to both coherent and incoherent radar scatter, provided they come with 3D location information.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→