MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036746360 · doi:10.1121/1.4743580

Anomalous signal loss in the Yellow Sea, revisited: Coupling the acoustics with model-generated oceanographic realizations

2000· article· en· W2036746360 on OpenAlexaff
Stanley A. Chin-Bing, David B. King, A. Warn‐Varnas, Robert A. Zingarelli, Kevin G. Lamb

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolitonThermoclineSIGNAL (programming language)Resonance (particle physics)Coupling (piping)PhysicsFlow (mathematics)AcousticsWork (physics)Nonlinear systemGeologyOceanographyMechanicsComputer scienceMaterials scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a seminal paper, Zhou et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90, 2042–2054 (1991)] introduced the concept of large anomalous signal loss due to a resonance effect caused by solitons (internal waves traveling along the thermocline). They assumed that solitons were present and produced a remarkable comparison between acoustic model predictions and their acoustic measurements taken over a four-year period. They did not take sufficient oceanographic measurements to confirm the existence of solitons. Numerous investigators have tried to duplicate their pioneering work in similar shallow-water environments with solitons present. Signal reduction, mode conversions, and resonance-like effects have been observed, but signal loss of the magnitude measured by Zhou et al. have not been observed. We have used a primitive equation soliton model and the tidal flow near the Shandong peninsula to generate soliton simulations that flow into the Yellow Sea near the region where Zhou et al. made their acoustic measurements. We are performing analysis similar to that of Zhou et al. on these soliton realizations to determine if large signal losses can occur. Results from this investigation will be presented and discussed. [Work supported by ONR/NRL and by a High Performance Computing DoD grant.]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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