MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001078446 · doi:10.1121/1.4785574

An airgun array source signature model for environmental impact assessments

2004· article· en· W2001078446 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander O. MacGillivray, N. Ross Chapman, David Hannay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignature (topology)UnderwaterAcousticsComputer scienceBubbleNoise (video)Source modelGeologyMarine engineeringPhysicsOceanographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental impact assessments for seismic surveys often include estimates of radially propagating sound levels, which are used to determine marine mammal impact zones. Sound levels may be estimated using computer-based acoustic modelling techniques but these require an accurate description of the survey source signature—arrays of airguns, in particular, have complex, highly directional source functions that depend on the array layout. To address this requirement, an airgun array source signature model has been developed for the purpose of underwater noise level prediction. The source model is based on published descriptions of the physics of airgun bubble oscillations and radiation [A. Ziolkowski, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 21, 137–161 (1970)] and includes the effects of port throttling, motion damping and bubble interactions. The output of the model is a collection of notional signatures which may be used to compute the source function of the array in any direction. Free parameters in the model have been fit to a large collection of existing airgun signature data, for airguns ranging from 5 to 185 in3. The output of the model is suitable for estimating sound levels resulting from airgun survey activity. [Work supported by NSERC.]

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.291
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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