The effect of marine sediments on the underwater penetration of a sonic boom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding and quantifying sonic boom penetration into the ocean is of substantial practical interest because of the potential impact of supersonic aircraft on marine mammals. Observations by Desharnais and Chapman [F. Desharnais and D. M. F. Chapman, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 544–553 (2002)] indicate, in qualitative agreement with numerical simulations, that sonic boom penetration in coastal regions may be significantly enhanced compared to the deep water case by the resonant excitation of seismo-acoustic waves in marine sediments. In this paper, an analytic theory originally developed to model interface waves in soft sediments with power-law shear speed profiles [O. A. Godin and D. M. F. Chapman, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 1890–1907 (2001)] is extended to simulate the shallow-water sound field induced by a shock wave incident from the air side. The theory explains salient features of the observations, including the nonmonotonic depth dependence of the sound exposure spectral density (SESD). Our analysis demonstrates that SESD in shallow water is sensitive to the geoacoustic parameters of the seabed, particularly the shear modulus profile. It may be possible to extract the shear wave attenuation coefficient in the sediment at low frequencies by analyzing sonic boom records from a vertical line array of hydrophones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".