MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160829760 · doi:10.1109/icwc.1992.200808

Results of channel sounding measurements on two ferry routes in Vancouver, BC, Canada

2003· article· en· W2160829760 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Stanley, D. Tang, T. Tatlock, R.C. Robertson, James L. Garrison

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChannel soundingDelay spreadMultipath propagationDepth soundingImpulse (physics)Channel (broadcasting)BayTelecommunicationsGeodesyAcousticsElectrical engineeringComputer scienceGeologyRemote sensingPhysicsGeographyCartographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report the statistical results of RMS delay spreads obtained from the impulse response measurements on the propagation channels of two ferry routes. They also present some impulse responses measured as the ferry was passing through regions where multipath echoes are known to be very active. At both ends of route F2 (Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo, 30 miles; 1 hr 35 min crossing time) the line-of-sight paths were obstructed by islands, and multipath signals were very active. Route F1 (Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay; 24 miles; 1 hr 35 min crossing time) crisscrosses many islands. In this region, multipath signals are extremely active. The channel impulse response measurements were made with a spread spectrum channel sounder at a frequency of 916 MHz. A chip rate of 3.125 Mb/s, a PN code word length of 127 bits, and a slip rate of 1 kHz were used. Results indicate that at a threshold of -20 dBc, RMS delay spread of 10 mu s and 12 mu s were exceeded 10% of the time for routes F2 and F1, respectively.>

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207