Validation of primary hydrophone calibrations by inter-laboratory comparisons and by independent calibration methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A description is presented of two approaches which may be used to validate primary calibration methods for hydrophones and transducers. Firstly, a comparison may be made with another independent absolute calibration method, preferably one based on a different physical principle (and therefore with few common sources of uncertainty). Secondly, an inter-laboratory comparison of calibrations may be undertaken between different institutes operating at a similar level. This paper describes the results of such exercises for free-field calibration of hydrophones in the range from 1 kHz to 500 kHz. Firstly, two independent calibration methods are compared: the three-transducer reciprocity method and a method based on optical interferometry. The differences observed in the results are typically less than 0.5 dB, which is of the same order as the overall uncertainties of each of the methods. Secondly, the results are shown of a recent international comparison of hydrophone calibrations involving institutes from Canada, China, Germany, Russia, South Africa, UK, and USA. Here, the agreement was generally within quoted uncertainties, the results generally lying within a ±0.5 dB band for frequencies up to 300 kHz. A discussion is given of the general sources of uncertainties in the calibrations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it