MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549534476

Automatic classification of impulsive-source active sonar echoes using perceptual signal features from musical acoustics

2006· article· en· W1549534476 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Victor W. Young, Paul C. Hines, Sean Pecknold

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonarMarine mammals and sonarAcousticsReverberationSonar signal processingSpeech recognitionSIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceLoudnessUnderwater acousticsUnderwaterSignal processingArtificial intelligenceGeologyRadarPhysicsTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility of using human auditory systems as signal features in an automatic classification of impulsive-source active sonar echoes recorded on a towed-array is discussed. It can be demonstrated that active sonar echoes can be successfully classified using perceptual signal features. The perceptual signal features include duration, sub-band attack and decay time, sub-band synchronicity, spectral character of the pre-attack noise, peak value, and the loudness spectrum. The data were collected during a sea trial on the Malta Plateau using signals underwater sound (SUS) charges and a towed array. The towed array data were beamformed to obtain a total of 81 horizontal beams, each of which were spectrally whitened by using a Butterworth filter, and normalized to eliminate reverberation. Results demonstrate that perceptual features with a Gaussian classifier can be used to successfully classify impulsive-source active sonar echoes, and can achieve an error rate less than 10%.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207