Discrimination between discrete and continuum scattering from the sub-seafloor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that seabed scattering is often dominated by heterogeneities within the sediment volume as opposed to seafloor roughness. From a theoretical viewpoint, sediment volume heterogeneities can be described either by a fluctuation continuum or by discrete particles. In at-sea experiments, heterogeneity characteristics generally are not known a priori. Thus, an uninformed model selection is generally made, i.e., the researcher must arbitrarily select either a discrete or continuum model. It is shown here that it is possible to (acoustically) discriminate between continuum and discrete heterogeneities in some instances. For example, when the spectral exponent γ3>4, the volume scattering cannot be described by discrete particles. Conversely, when γ3≤2, the heterogeneities likely arise from discrete particles. Furthermore, in the range 2<γ3≤4 it is sometimes possible to discriminate via physical bounds on the parameter values. The ability to so discriminate is important, because there are few tools for measuring small scale, O(10(-2) to 10(1)) m, sediment heterogeneities over large areas. Therefore, discriminating discrete vs continuum heterogeneities via acoustic remote sensing may lead to improved observations and concomitant increased understanding of the marine benthic environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".