MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896393924 · doi:10.1121/1.5068392

A primer on vector hydrophones

2018· article· en· W2896393924 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce A. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsGeoSpectrum Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrophoneParticle velocityMeasure (data warehouse)AcousticsVector fieldPhysicsParticle (ecology)UnderwaterVelocity vectorNeutral buoyancyQUIETBuoyancyPhase (matter)Computer scienceGeologyMechanicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vector hydrophones are used by the military to track submarines, and, more recently, by scientists attempting to measure the influence of particle velocity on the behaviour of fish. Despite being in use for decades, vector hydrophones remain poorly understood by both communities. The problem is particularly acute for those aiming to measure particle velocity because vector hydrophones do not measure particle velocity directly; rather they measure pressure difference, the force that creates particle velocity. Topics covered will be the two types of vector hydrophone and why only one works well at low frequencies, the importance of knowing the phase of the directional channels relative to each other and to the pressure hydrophone, how bearings are determined, calibration of vector hydrophones and near-field effects, the magnitude of particle velocity for typical sound pressure levels, why bigger is better for mechanical noise, why neutral buoyancy is unnecessary and undesirable, and best practice for mounting.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.068

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 head0.245
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→