MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615756766 · doi:10.1109/joe.2017.2699058

Characterizing Transmission Loss Variability During the Target and Reverberation Experiment 2013

2017· article· en· W2615756766 on OpenAlexafffund
Cristina Tollefsen, Sean Pecknold

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchDefence Research and Development CanadaPennsylvania State University
KeywordsReverberationStandard deviationTransmission lossAcousticsSonarRangingUnderwater acousticsUnderwaterTransmission (telecommunications)Environmental sciencePhysicsGeologyStatisticsMathematicsGeodesyTelecommunicationsComputer scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant driver of uncertainty in sonar performance is the variability in underwater acoustical propagation caused by environmental fluctuations and uncertainty in the position of sources, targets, and receivers. A set of echo-repeat experiments was conducted during the Target and Reverberation Experiment 2013 (TREX13), a sea trial that took place in April to May 2013 in the Gulf of Mexico near Panama City, FL, USA. The variability in measured transmission loss (TL) was characterized using two different methods: Variability with respect to a mean observed TL, and variability with respect to modeled TL. Both one-way and quasi-reciprocal two-way TL measurements at 2250 and 7500 Hz were analyzed to characterize the variability at timescales ranging from less than one second to several days, with the results indicating that the acoustic propagation fluctuates stochastically on all these time scales. The results of statistical tests suggest that the TL variability can be treated as Gaussian fluctuations about a central TL obtained from an acoustic propagation model, with standard deviations of 5 dB over timescales up to one day, or 10 dB over timescales from one to six days.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Oceanic EngineeringSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207