MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ground‐Penetrating Radar

2023· other· en· W4361838289 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

VenueInternational Encyclopedia of Geography · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarClassification of discontinuitiesGeologyRadarRemote sensingHomogeneousEnergy (signal processing)Reflector (photography)GeophysicsComputer scienceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) is a remote sensing technique that enables field observation and investigation of embedded near‐surface objects, structural discontinuities, and other material heterogeneities. GPR is commonly used to detect embedded targets of interest (objects and structures) with varying material properties, geometries, and depths. Various scientific and commercial applications of GPR exist to identify soil and geologic characteristics, metallic objects, buried artifacts, and even tree roots. GPR antennae send electromagnetic energy in waves into various media, such as soil, rock, concrete, asphalt, and ice, and receive energy reflected from embedded targets or materials that absorb and redirect electromagnetic energy. The data obtained are rendered in a two‐dimensional radargram image, where the horizontal and vertical location of reflector features is represented in an upright‐oriented profile. GPR is most likely to identify targets accurately when the scanning medium is relatively homogeneous; complex subsurface media can challenge successful detection. Evolving data processing methods, informed by simulations and even artificial intelligence, may improve interpretation accuracy in challenging scanning contexts.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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