MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013045699 · doi:10.1121/1.4786680

Study on the human ability to aurally discriminate between target echoes and environmental clutter in recordings of incoherent broadband sonar

2006· article· en· W2013045699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nancy Allen, Paul C. Hines, Victor W. Young, Douglas A. Caldwell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterSonarMarine mammals and sonarComputer scienceBroadbandFalse alarmConstant false alarm rateEcho (communications protocol)AcousticsArtificial intelligenceRadarTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unacceptably high false-alarm rates due to the inability to discriminate between target echoes and environmental clutter are an issue for existing low-frequency active sonar systems operating in coastal environments. A research project at Defence R&D Canada—Atlantic is investigating the potential use of aural cues to tackle this challenge. One aspect of the project is to evaluate the human ability to aurally discriminate between target echoes and environmental clutter. The design and preliminary results from the study are presented here. Human subjects are presented with a series of sounds containing target echoes and clutter obtained from recordings of an incoherent broadband sonar experiment. The quantitative data collected in the study are the subjects’ decisions as to whether the echo heard was a target echo or clutter and their level of confidence associated with the decisions. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis is used to produce a statistical model of the subjects’ performance. The study also includes a questionnaire: answers may prove useful in supporting the quantitative results and in providing a better understanding of the cues and decision techniques used by the subjects.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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