Studying GPR's direct and reflected waves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the transmitter and receiver (Tx and Rx, respectively) are located in close proximity during a typical ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) survey, the powerful signal generated by the Tx and which is then recorded by the Rx at various time delays, can be saturated at early times (i.e., this is the direct wave (DW) signal reaching the Rx). This often causes the masking of shallow targets, complicating data interpretation. In this study, our aim is to examine the spatial distribution of the electromagnetic signals around the Tx, attempting to locate areas where the DW becomes minimum, whereas the signal strength from subsurface targets (i.e., reflected wave – RW) remains ideally unchanged. The position of these local minima in the DW signal could give rise to advantageous Tx–Rx configurations, where clear reflections from subsurface targets lying at shallow depths can be obtained with the least possible involvement of the DW. To perform such a study, we carried out static field measurements over a flat lying reflector as well as numerical simulations in a reflection, common‐offset mode around a transmitting antenna. In the field, we also collected wide‐angle reflection–refraction data to determine the GPR wave velocity in the uppermost layer. GPR signals were recorded by the Rx around the Tx in three concentric circles of various radii (i.e., varying the Tx/Rx separation), using a specific angular step and varying the Tx/Rx polarization each time. The synthetic data were produced using a three‐dimensional finite‐difference time‐domain modelling tool. Field and numerically simulated data were analysed and compared to study the behaviour of both the DW and RW events around the Tx when changing the Tx/Rx distance, their respective angular position, as well as their relative polarization/orientation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".