MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971273019 · doi:10.1121/1.3588087

Bayesian inversion of seabed scattering data.

2011· article· en· W1971273019 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin Steininger, Stan E. Dosso, Charles W. Holland, Jan Dettmer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabedReverberationScatteringGeologySonarAcousticsAttenuationWaves and shallow waterBathymetryInversion (geology)OpticsPhysicsSeismologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reverberation modeling and sonar performance predictions in shallow water require good estimates of seabed scattering and reflection as well as an understanding of scattering processes in a particular region. This talk considers the ability to resolve scattering parameters (e.g., scattering strength and roughness) and geoacoustic parameters (layer thicknesses, sound speed, density, and attenuation) using Bayesian inversion and a forward model based on first-order perturbation scattering theory and multilayer reflection coefficients. Results are considered in terms of marginal posterior probability distributions, which quantify the effective data information content to resolve scattering/geoacoustic parameters. Inversions are applied to synthetic data and to direct-path scattering measurements from shallow-water test beds. These measurements probe the seabed on an intermediate spatial scale (patch-size radius of ∼500 m for both reflection and scattering), which reduces the effects of ocean variability (associated with sound speed profile, seabed, and biologics) and uncertainty relative to long-range reverberation measurements. [This work is supported by the ONR.]

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207