MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080971161 · doi:10.1121/1.4786873

Single beam echosounding: Considerations of depth and seabed slope

2005· article· en· W2080971161 on OpenAlexaff
B. Biffard, N. Ross Chapman, Steve Bloomer, J.M. Preston

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsQuest University CanadaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabedBathymetryGeologyEcho soundingBeam (structure)Compensation (psychology)GeomorphologyGeodesyGeotechnical engineeringRemote sensingOpticsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topic of depth compensation of single beam echo time series for seabed classification is fairly well studied. The effect of seabed slope has not been publicized. In applications for seabed classification, seabed slope is observed to be associated with classification inaccuracy and failure. In cases of higher slope, single beam bathymetry also becomes inaccurate. A survey of 2 fjords with extreme variation in slope is presented as a representative example and testing bed for investigating slope. The direct effect on seabed echoes is investigated and explained in reference to a simple model of beam-echo geometry. Survey bathymetry is compensated for slope; inaccuracies of up to 5% of depth are corrected, however bottom picking accuracy is diminished in areas of slope and cannot be improved. Surveys of a gas hydrate site and a river will also be presented as applications of these ideas. Early results from BORIS model studies of methods for compensation of slope and depth may also be 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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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