MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Optimal Height for Ground Coupled GPR

2025· article· en· W7084156999 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCanadian Criminal Justice Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarHomogeneousWavelengthRange (aeronautics)Surface waveElectromagnetic spectrum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground coupled GPRs typically operate in contact with, or close to the ground surface. The goal of this study was to understand the effect of height on GPR response for the near surface regime and to determine an optimal height. The height range investigated was from 0 to 0.08 of the GPR's center frequency wavelength in free space ($\lambda_{c}$). There are many applications, such as vegetated or rough terrain, where acquiring GPR data would be easier with the GPR higher off the surface. Using three-dimensional (3D) finite-difference timedomain (FDTD) modeling of a shielded 250 MHz GPR on a homogeneous media with a perfectly conducting layer at depth, we investigated the response dependence on height, for cases with and without air wave interference. The height dependence for data collected over a subsurface utility with a commercial 250 MHz GPR are also analyzed and compared to the model data. These results provide an understanding of the tradeoffs in choosing an optimal height for GPR data acquisition.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.309
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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→