MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078894693 · doi:10.1016/s1054-3139(03)00055-9

Extraction and comparison of acoustic backscatter from a calibrated multi- and single-beam sonar

2003· article· en· W2078894693 on OpenAlexaff
Gary D. Melvin, Norman A. Cochrane, Yanchao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersDivision of Ocean Sciences
KeywordsSonarEcho soundingBackscatter (email)Target strengthBeam (structure)CalibrationAcousticsBeam diameterGeologyBeam patternTransducerRemote sensingOpticsEnvironmental sciencePhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multi-beam sonar is potentially a powerful analytical tool for investigating the acoustic properties and behaviour of fish in relation to quantitative fisheries research. The SIMRAD SM2000 is a 200 kHz multi-beam sonar employing an 80-element array to transmit and synthesize, electronically, 128 receive beams (20°×2.2°) over a 180° arc simultaneously. Once calibrated, such systems enable the extraction of acoustic target strength and volume backscattering from an extended 3D ocean volume. We present an overview of the theoretical framework for the calibration of a multi-beam sonar, and then compare the acoustic backscatter from a calibrated single-beam 50 kHz echosounder with selected beams from a sphere-calibrated multi-beam sonar. Both systems recorded acoustic data from Atlantic herring contained within a weir, as the fish passed beneath the transducers. Specifically, we examine the relationship between the area-backscattering strength (Sa) from the single-beam system with the nadir beam (beam 63) of the SM2000 sonar. In addition, data are presented on the observed variability in Sa with target aspect for off-vertical angles from 15° to 60° in 15° intervals. Non-standard synthesized SM2000 beam widths are explored for both calibration and field datasets. The implications for biomass estimation are also 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations30
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207