MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035800656 · doi:10.1121/1.4777861

Characteristics of open ocean bubble plumes from a 3-month inverted echo-sounder record

2002· article· en· W2035800656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark V. Trevorrow

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumeGeologyBubbleEcho soundingVolume (thermodynamics)Backscatter (email)SonarMeteorologyOceanographyMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A self-contained 200-kHz inverted echo-sounder was deployed at Ocean Station Papa (NE Pacific, 1400 km west of Vancouver Is.) from 1 March to 20 May, 1996. The instrument operated continuously, recording calibrated volume scattering from near-surface bubbles with 3-s and 30-cm resolution. Average surface wind and significant wave height during this period were 7.5 m/s and 2.8 m, respectively. The data show the frequent occurrence of bubbles organized into vertical, plume-like structures, presumably drawn downward within the convergence zones of Langmuir circulation. Significant bubble plume activity (defined as average plume depth >3 m) was observed during 61% of the operating period. Average bubble plume penetrations of up to 15 m were observed, with maximum penetrations up to 25 m. Within the plumes, the backscatter cross section exhibited an exponential decay with depth, with e-folding scale in the range 0.5 to 2.5 m. Some implications of this plume-like structure for high-frequency sonar performance will be discussed.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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