MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898031441 · doi:10.1121/1.5067507

Modeling acoustic interactions with a dynamic rough sea surface boundary

2018· article· en· W2898031441 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Higgins, Martin Siderius, Paul C. Hines, Douglas A. Abraham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodScatteringAcousticsBoundary value problemBoundary (topology)Surface roughnessReflection (computer programming)OpticsPhysicsSurface finishComputational physicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisMaterials scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acoustic wave scattering properties of a dynamic pressure-release surface boundary are analyzed using a numeric technique based on the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method. Of primary interest is to study the impact of assuming a “frozen” sea-surface on long duration sonar transmissions. Although relatively uncommon in ocean acoustics, the FDTD approach is well suited for modeling boundary roughness and motion. This technique has the additional benefit that the pressure fields are resolved over time, which allows for transient analysis of the observed wave scattering effects. The method is adapted from electromagnetic wave scattering and can properly model the physics of the observed system, which shows a frequency modulated reflection that includes a double-Doppler effect. First, a traditional analytic solution for the static smooth surface boundary ocean half-space model, the Lloyd Mirror, is compared to an equivalent simulation using the FDTD method. Then a dynamic smooth surface boundary is investigated using a modified Lloyd-mirror solution and the FDTD method. Finally, surface roughness for both static and dynamic boundary cases will be considered. Agreement is shown between FDTD simulations and the modified Lloyd Mirror model for both one-dimension and two-dimension cases. [Work supported by the Office of Naval Research.]

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207