MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963912627 · doi:10.1109/oceanse.2007.4302211

A Methodology to Assess Capabilities Against Underwater Targets in Harbour Protection

2007· article· en· W1963912627 on OpenAlexaff
Bao Nguyen, Handson Yip, Patrick Grignan

Bibliographic record

VenueOCEANS 2007 - Europe · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderwaterHarbourUnmanned underwater vehicleSonarMarine engineeringTrack (disk drive)EngineeringTracking (education)Computer scienceComputer securitySimulationArtificial intelligenceOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper describes a stochastic model of effectiveness for a harbour-defence system to counter an underwater threat. This model is applied to a scenario in harbour X. The defence consists of an active sonar with a detection and tracking system, an intercept platform with a non lethal weapon system, and an underwater barrier with trip-wire sensors. We showed that the effectiveness of the defence system against an UUV threat depends on the reaction-time of the interceptor (the time required to launch the interceptor after a track has been initiated). Short reaction-time is required for the sonar and the interceptor to be effective against the UUV threat. However, when the interceptor reaction-time is long, the underwater barrier system becomes the only effective system against the UUV. The paper also introduces a novel and efficient algorithm to determine the probability of track-initiation and presents the concept of a safety zone as well as determine its benefits.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOCEANS 2007 - EuropeSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207