MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380990075 · doi:10.3390/s23125638

Backscattering Echo Intensity Characteristics of Laser in Soil Explosion Dust

2023· article· en· W4380990075 on OpenAlexaff
Lijuan Gao, Fue‐Sang Lien, Huimin Chen, Guang Chen, Shangxian Yang, Jiahao Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsLaserExplosive materialEnvironmental scienceImpact craterWater contentIntensity (physics)Soil waterEcho (communications protocol)Remote sensingOpticsMaterials scienceSoil scienceGeologyChemistryPhysicsGeotechnical engineeringAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil dust generated by explosions can lead to the absorption and scattering of lasers, resulting in low detection and recognition accuracy for laser-based devices. Field tests to assess laser transmission characteristics in soil explosion dust are dangerous and involve uncontrollable environmental conditions. Instead, we propose using high-speed cameras and an indoor explosion chamber to assess the backscattering echo intensity characteristics of lasers in dust generated by small-scale explosive blasts in soil. We analyzed the influence of the mass of the explosive, depth of burial, and soil moisture content on crater features and temporal and spatial distributions of soil explosion dust. We also measured the backscattering echo intensity of a 905 nm laser at different heights. The results showed that the concentration of soil explosion dust was highest in the first 500 ms. The minimum normalized peak echo voltage ranged from 0.318 to 0.658. The backscattering echo intensity of the laser was found to be strongly correlated with the mean gray value of the monochrome image of soil explosion dust. This study provides experimental data and a theoretical basis for the accurate detection and recognition of lasers in soil explosion dust environments.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicAdvanced Optical Sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207