MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080413102 · doi:10.1121/1.3588763

Surface scattering rejection for clear sidescan images.

2011· article· en· W2080413102 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen K. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamformingSonarAcousticsScatteringSurface (topology)GeologyAdaptive beamformerInterference (communication)Computer scienceRemote sensingOpticsTelecommunicationsPhysicsChannel (broadcasting)GeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface scattering is a major source of interference for sidescan sonar systems operating in high traffic areas or in choppy water. This surface scattering from wakes, as a result of boat traffic or from the chop of the sea surface, obscures the bottom return. A sonar system with a multi-element array can separate surface signals from bottom signals using beamforming, thereby creating clear images of the seafloor. This multi-element array can have as few as six elements and still effectively remove surface scattering. In this paper, different beamforming techniques are applied and their impact on suppressing surface returns is shown. Comparisons between beamforming methods are made by comparing the relative path levels with and without beamforming applied. The ability of a multi-element array to successfully discriminate between bottom returns and surface returns using beamforming is then shown using both simulated and experimental data. It is concluded that sonar systems employing a multi-element array can produce clear images of the seafloor even in the presence of strong surface interference when beamforming is used to create a beam that has a broad main lobe pointed toward the bottom and low sidelobes pointed toward the surface.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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