MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2897503931 · doi:10.1121/1.5068126

An improved Gaussian beam caustic correction for Bellhop at low frequencies

2018· article· en· W2897503931 on OpenAlexaff
Diana F. McCammon, Dale D. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamwidthCaustic (mathematics)Beam (structure)GaussianGaussian beamRay tracing (physics)Geometrical acousticsCurvaturePhysicsAmplitudeOpticsMathematicsAcousticsMathematical analysisGeometryComputer scienceTelecommunicationsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gaussian beams are commonly used in ray-tracing to mitigate the effects of caustics and shadow zones. The problem is how to determine the width of these “fuzzy” beams. Porter and Bucker [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82, 1349–1359, 1987] proposed a method that expressed the beamwidth and curvature in terms of p and q of the dynamic ray equations. We call q the beamwidth factor. In the Gaussian beam implementation caustics are not caused by the crossing of two rays; rather they occur when the beamwidth factor, which appears in the denominator of the amplitude, becomes small. In practice, this is generally not a problem at high frequencies, but as the frequency gets lower the problem gets more severe. The widely used Bellhop model has a procedure, which “caps” the beamwidth when q becomes too small, but the procedure eventually breaks down at low frequencies. Here, we propose a different cap based on a cylindrical wave front converging to the focal point of a caustic. The various caps are compared with the “exact” normal mode solution for a shallow-water upward refracting environment, illustrating how the new cap provides better reduction of the caustic anomalies.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicUnderwater Acoustics Research→French-language works237,207→