A Two-Stage Method for Determining the Position and Corresponding Precision of Marine Mammal Sounds; 2004BU1-OT
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today there is a concern that man-made sounds, such as that from sonar experiments, seismic operations and oil rigs, affect marine mammals. Detection and localisation of marine mammals will definitely support measures to reduce the possible detrimental effects. This paper presents a two-stage localisation method, which is applied to data collected with an array of five hydrophones moored to the seabed in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. The array forms a 14 by 14 km square with one hydrophone in the centre. The method makes use of the relative travel times of the mammal's sound to the four hydrophones at the square vertices with respect to the travel time to the central hydrophone. First, a good initial position is obtained using hyperbolic fixing. In the second step the solution is improved in an iterative process, where each iteration determines the least-squares solution of the set of four linearized equations for the measured relative travel times. Calculating the error ellipse from the covariance matrix of the solution provides the localisation accuracy. There are several parameters that affect the source position accuracy. These include the uncertainties in arrival times, sound speed and receiver positions. Their effect on the localisation accuracy is assessed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it