MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592461053

Localization of right whales using matched correlation processing

2006· article· en· W1592461053 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gordon R. Ebbeson, Francine Desharnais

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrophoneAcousticsUnderwaterSonarBroadbandGeologyUnderwater acousticsSynthetic aperture sonarSonar signal processingRemote sensingCross-correlationWaves and shallow waterGeodesySignal processingOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsMathematicsRadar
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Matched Correlation Processing (MCP) for the localization of right whales was demonstrated. Model-based MCP techniques have been researched with the goal of improving the capability of passive sonar systems for localizing quiet underwater sources. The cross-correlations for a broadband source as measured with a pair of hydrophones in a horizontal array are matched with those generated with a correlation model for many candidate ranges and depth along a candidate bearing. These matches are carried out with a number of hydrophone pairs to form many range-depth ambiguity surfaces. A three-sensor horizontal array with an aperture of 125 m was deployed on the sea bottom in 68 m of water and the hydrophones were localized using an Array Element Localization (AEL) procedure. A light bulb was imploded at a depth of 41.5 m from hydrophone. Using light bulbs as simulated right whale gunshots, the technique was shown to work extremely well out to a range of about six water depths in an environment that has sufficient bottom reflections.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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