MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6907171182 · doi:10.21227/yhh6-my42

HAR UWB RADAR DATASET

2024· dataset· en· W6907171182 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE DataPort · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadarPulse repetition frequencyPulse-Doppler radarContinuous-wave radarRadar engineering detailsRadar lock-onTransmission (telecommunications)Radar trackerLow probability of intercept radarData transmission

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we employed the XeThru X4M300 radar to generate and receive Ultra-Wideband (UWB) signals for human activity recognition in indoor environments. The XeThru X4M300 pulse-Doppler radar module operates at a configurable carrier frequency of either 7.29 GHz or 8.42 GHz, providing a high-resolution solution specifically suited to indoor applications such as human presence monitoring, motion tracking, and security. Its UWB pulse transmission enables enhanced range resolution, crucial for accurately distinguishing between multiple human activities. Key attributes of X4M300 radar include its adaptability for customized settings, such as adjustable detection range, frame rate, pulse count per step, and sweep iteration. These configurable parameters allow precise optimization for various applications, maximizing signal clarity and robustness. Additionally, the radar module is equipped with digital down-conversion, advanced filtering, and data rate optimization capabilities, enhancing both signal processing efficiency and data fidelity, which are essential in radar-based human activity recognition tasks where real-time, high-quality data capture is critical.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.068

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE DataPortFrench-language works237,207