MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

False Plot Identification Using Multi-frame Clustering for Compact HFSWR

2023· article· en· W4386646868 on OpenAlexaff
Weifeng Sun, Linlin Zhao, Xiaotong Li, Yonggang Ji, Yongshou Dai, Weimin Huang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Cluster analysisFrame (networking)Plot (graphics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)GeologyRemote sensingTelecommunicationsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compact high-frequency surface wave radar suffers from a high false alarm rate in target detection due to its low transmit power and wide beam, thus a large number of false plots are produced, which increases the computational burden of subsequent target tracking algorithm and easily leads to producing false tracks. In this paper, a two-stage false plot identification method is proposed. Firstly, a multi-frame plot clustering algorithm is proposed to cluster the potential plots of the same target in several consecutive frames, the plots outside the clusters are removed as false plots. Then, the differences in terms of range and Doppler velocity between the plot in the center frame and those in its neighbor frames in each cluster are used as features. Finally, a trained extreme learning machine is applied to the obtained features to recognize the remaining false plots. Experimental results with both simulated and field data demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method for false plot identification.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Engineering Thermal-HydraulicsFrench-language works237,207