MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048827156 · doi:10.1121/1.3385381

Testing the temporal robustness of an automatic aural classifier.

2010· article· en· W2048827156 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan M. Murphy, Paul C. Hines

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterComputer scienceSonarClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceMarine mammals and sonarRobustness (evolution)Pattern recognition (psychology)AcousticsRadarSpeech recognitionComputer visionPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Military sonar systems must detect and classify submarine threats at ranges safely outside their circle of attack. However, in littoral environments, echoes from geological features (clutter) are frequently mistaken for targets of interest, resulting in degraded performance. Perceptual signal features similar to those employed in the human auditory system can be used to automatically discriminate between target and clutter echoes, thereby improving sonar performance. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 1502–1517 (2007)] The present work examines the temporal robustness of the aural classifier using data from two field trials: the first in 2007 and the second in 2009. The experiments were conducted on the Malta Plateau using a cardioid towed-array receiver, and a broadband source transmitting linear FM sweeps from 600–3500 Hz. The data set consists of hundreds of pulse-compressed echoes from several surrogate targets and geological clutter objects. The echoes are examined using an automatic classifier that processes each echo to extract perceptual features. Each echo is classified as target or clutter based on the position vector formed by these features. The classifier establishes a boundary between clutter and target echoes in the feature space using the 2007 experiment. Temporal robustness is investigated by testing the classifier on echoes from the 2009 experiment. In this work, the experiments are reviewed and initial results are presented.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.272
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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