MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895129830 · doi:10.23919/oceans.2011.6107268

A low-cost calibration facility for high-frequency acoustic backscatter instruments

2011· article· en· W1895129830 on OpenAlexaff
David Lemon, Murray Clarke, Patrick Johnston, Jan Buermans, M. Taillefer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsASL Environmental Sciences (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationBackscatter (email)Target strengthAcousticsTransducerInterference (communication)Frequency bandBeam (structure)Measure (data warehouse)SonarRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceOpticsGeologyPhysicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringComputer scienceTelecommunicationsFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Full-system calibration of acoustic instruments used to measure high-frequency backscatter from zooplankton and small fish in the ocean is required if the data are to be used to estimate biomass and populations from signals at different frequencies. Here we describe a test tank facility for calibrating high-frequency, narrow-band sonars operating at one or more frequencies from 125 kHz to 775 kHz and with beam-widths between 1.8 and 11 degrees. The all steel tank is cylindrical with a diameter of 2.43 metres and a length of 6.10 metres and holds 28.5 cubic metres of water. The absorbing material on the end wall is a coarse artificial turf which is easily available at minimal cost and reduces high-frequency reverberations in the tank to negligible levels after 6 reflections. Pulsed operation at pinging rates up to 10 Hz is therefore possible without interference from reverberations. Echoes from the target are recorded over a series of pings; the difference between the target strength computed from the mean of those echoes and the known target strength is a measure of the accuracy of the nominal instrument response calculated from the manufacturer's transducer characteristics and bench measurements of the system electronics, and therefore allows a calibration correction to be made. An acoustic propagation model of the tank has also been developed to characterize the response of instruments placed in it and to identify optimum target placements.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.009

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207