MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035005646 · doi:10.1121/1.4780497

Matched-field processing with an L-shaped array

2003· article· en· W2035005646 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gregory J. Orris, Michael Nicholas, John S. Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaArray processingGeologyField (mathematics)Signal processingComputer scienceData processingRemote sensingGeodesyAcousticsTelecommunicationsOceanographyPhysicsMathematicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data was collected on a 64 element L-shaped Array deployed in two at-sea experiments: RDS-1 off the coast of Halifax, Nova Scotia during late September of 1997, and KWIX-98 off Key West, Florida in August of 1998. The L-shaped array was deployed in a configuration with 32 elements in the horizontal and 32 elements in the vertical. Environmental variability during both experiments proved to be extreme at times due to weather and prevailing currents, making processing with so-called ‘‘high-resolution’’ and multi-frequency matched-field processing difficult. It was observed that fully coherent spatial processing using robust linear methods offered only marginal improvement over treating each leg of the array separately and combining the results in an incoherent processor. Possible explanations for these results are explored along with approaches aimed at improving the system performance. [Work supported by 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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