MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622197012 · doi:10.1121/1.4989361

Effects of time dispersion on echo, reverberation, and echo to reverberation ratio in a range-dependent Pekeris waveguide

2017· article· en· W2622197012 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Ainslie, Dale D. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReverberationBathymetrySonarAcousticsEcho (communications protocol)Dispersion (optics)Waves and shallow waterRange (aeronautics)Pulse (music)Echo soundingGeologyPhysicsOpticsComputer scienceMaterials scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In shallow water, active sonar performance is typically limited by reverberation, making the prediction of target echo and reverberation, and their ratio, an important part of sonar performance prediction. In range-dependent shallow water environments, these quantities are often calculated without considering the effect of dispersion. The effect of time dispersion is considered taking examples for a range-dependent bathymetry from the 2010 Weston Memorial Workshop. Using the analytical method of [M. A. Ainslie and D. D. Ellis (in press), IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering], combined with normal mode predictions [D. D. Ellis (1995). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 2804-2814], neglect of time dispersion is found to result in an error of up to 16 dB in the echo level for a short CW pulse (duration 3 ms). The effect of 3D geometry is considered, and results for a cylindrically symmetric bathymetry are shown to differ by up to 14 dB from the corresponding results with a Cartesian symmetry. The difficulties associated with modeling an LFM pulse are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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