MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896638619 · doi:10.1121/1.5067429

The effects of ice cover and oceanography on medium-frequency acoustic propagation on the Chukchi Shelf

2018· article· en· W2896638619 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sean Pecknold, Christopher Whitt, Ildar R. Urazghildiiev, Michelle Weirathmueller, Mohsen Badiey, Altan Turgut, Jason D. Sagers, Megan S. Ballard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySonarAmbient noise levelOceanographySound propagationArcticCanada BasinWaves and shallow waterAcousticsThe arcticSound (geography)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canada Basin Acoustic Propagation Experiment (CANAPE) was a year-long experiment exploring the changing nature of sound propagation and ambient noise in the Arctic ocean. As part of this experiment, medium-frequency signals at 0.7–1 kHz and 1–4 kHz were transmitted by two sources on the Chukchi Shelf. One of these sources was located in an area of 150 m of water depth, approximately 350 m from a directional receiver array and 50 km from an 8-element vertical line array in a water depth of about 125 m. Oceanographic sensors were located both on the arrays and on a set of moorings on the shelf, and an ice-profiling sonar was located between the arrays about 15 km from the source. In this talk, we will focus on using the measured environmental data and propagation modeling to characterize the variability observed in the short-range and long-range received acoustic signals over the course of CANAPE.

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 score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→