MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403639383 · doi:10.1103/physreve.110.045207

Point-cloud clustering and tracking algorithm for radar interferometry

2024· article· en· W4403639383 on OpenAlexafffund
Magnus F. Ivarsen, G. C. Hussey, Devin Huyghebaert, Megan D. Gillies

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space AgencyAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaNorges ForskningsrådCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsRadarComputer scienceCluster analysisRemote sensingTracking (education)SatelliteBackscatter (email)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceGeologyPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In data mining, density-based clustering, which entails classifying datapoints according to their distributions in some space, is an essential method to extract information from large datasets. With the advent of software-based radio, ionospheric radars are capable of producing unprecedentedly large datasets of plasma turbulence backscatter observations, and new automatic techniques are needed to sift through them. We present an algorithm to automatically identify and track clusters of radar echoes through time, using dbscan, a celebrated density-based clustering method for noisy point clouds. We demonstrate our algorithm's efficiency by tracking turbulent structures in the E-region ionosphere, the so-called radar aurora. Through conjugate auroral imagery, as well as in situ satellite observations, we demonstrate that the observed turbulent structures generally track the motion of auroras. What is more, the radar aurora bulk motions exhibit key qualities of auroral electric field enhancements that have previously been observed with various instruments. We present preliminary statistical results using our method, and briefly discuss the method's limitations and potential future adaptations.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicIonosphere and magnetosphere dynamicsFrench-language works237,207