MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Cavity RCS Measurement Method Based on Microwave Imaging Extraction

2022· article· en· W4328029999 on OpenAlexaff
Lingkang Kong, Jingcheng Zhao, Michel Kadoch, Zhihua Chen, Zhengfa Zuo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced SAR Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScatteringMicrowave cavityOpticsInletCavity wallMicrowaveInverse synthetic aperture radarMaterials scienceAcousticsPhysicsRadarRadar imagingAerospace engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cavity scattering brought by the inlet is an important scattering source of the stealth UAV, so obtaining the scattering characteristics of the cavity target in the installed state is an important topic for the stealth performance test of the UAV. After installation, the cavity target is wrapped inside the aircraft, and its outer surface does not produce scattering contribution. In order to effectively eliminate the scattering from the external surface of the cavity and obtain the accurate scattering characteristics inside the cavity, the algorithm of microwave imaging reverse RCS is applied to the test of the cavity in this paper. After the cavity is imaged by ISAR, the method removes the strong scattering region of the outer wall of the cavity, so as to obtain a new ISAR image. Moreover, it integrates the new ISAR image to obtain the echo information inside the cavity under the installed state. The simulation results show that this method can effectively eliminate the scattering from the outer wall of the cavity and evaluate the inlet RCS of UAV at large incident angle.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced SAR Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207