MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389514625 · doi:10.1093/fsr/owad040

Ground penetrating radar used to detect drowning victims under ice

2023· article· en· W4389514625 on OpenAlexafffund
Gordon G. Giesbrecht, Mitesh Patel, Rafid Javid, Scott W. Murray, Vrushil Kiritkumar Patel, Noah Wiens, Darren Xie, Ian Jeffrey, Philip Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueForensic Sciences Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarRemote sensingRadarGeologySnowMeteorologyComputer scienceGeomorphologyGeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every year, people drown after falling through ice on rivers and lakes. In some cases, the body of the victim floats up to the underside of the ice, making detection and recovery difficult using traditional search methods with divers. A robust and contact-less sensing system is required to locate drowning victims that does not put rescue teams at risk of falling through the ice themselves. In this paper, we demonstrate the feasibility of a ground penetrating radar (GPR) for detecting deceased drowning victims that have floated up to the underside of the ice. We placed three euthanized pigs simulating drowning victims under ice ranging in thickness from 5 to 26 cm. We dragged a GPR at 500 MHz and 1 GHz across the ice to detect the simulated victims using an autocorrelation-based detection technique. Results showed that both frequencies were able to detect the rough shape of the simulated victims at ice thicknesses up to 42 cm, with the 1-GHz data showing slightly more resolution than the 500-MHz data. These results show promise and suggest future development of an autonomous drone-based GPR detection system. Key points: Floating bodies are successfully detected under both ice and snow using a commercial ground penetrating radar system with ice depths reaching up to 26 cm in a controlled environment.The differences between using radar systems operating at/around 500 MHz and 1 GHz were not pronounced from the point of view of detection.Future studies should investigate the capabilities for detecting bodies in more realistic settings.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForensic Sciences ResearchSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207