MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079657048 · doi:10.1121/1.4808534

Bayesian geoacoustic inversion in a range-dependent environment

2007· article· en· W2079657048 on OpenAlexaff
Ross Chapman, Yong‐Min Jiang, Bill Hodgkiss

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathymetryGeologySonarInversion (geology)AcousticsSeabedRange (aeronautics)Ground truthGeodesyWaves and shallow waterContinental shelfChirpRemote sensingOceanographyComputer scienceSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In August 2006 a series of experiments was carried out on the New Jersey continental shelf to investigate geoacoustic inversion in a range-dependent shallow water environment. The experimental site was instrumented with multiple oceanographic sensing systems to provide spatial and temporal ground truth of the ocean environment throughout the experiments. The acoustic experiments used multiple receiving systems and sound sources operating over a large frequency band from 50 to 20 kHz. This paper presents results from inversion of low-frequency (<1000 Hz) data obtained along a radial track from one of the 16-element vertical line arrays. The track was surveyed with a chirp sonar to establish bathymetric and subbottom ground truth. Continuous wave tones were recorded at ranges of 1, 3, and 5 km where the source ship held station for several minutes. Bayesian matched field inversion was applied at each of the sites. The effects of unknown range dependence were taken into account by estimating the data error covariance from multiple data windows at each range station. The inversions indicate that the long-range experimental geometry provided reliable estimates for the sea floor sediment parameters in the range-dependent environment. [Work supported by ONR Ocean Acoustics Team.]

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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