MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2987479267 · doi:10.1121/1.5137343

Investigating gradients in mud based on Bayesian modal-dispersion inversion and a hybrid geoacoustic model parameterization

2019· article· en· W2987479267 on OpenAlexaff
Stan E. Dosso, Julien Bonnel, N. Ross Chapman, Preston S. Wilson, David P. Knobles

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParameterized complexityGeologyInversion (geology)SeabedAcoustic dispersionBayesian probabilityAcousticsImage warpingComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmAcoustic waveOceanographyStatisticsSeismologyArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important issue in understanding seabed geoacoustic properties at the site of the 2017 Seabed Characterization Experiment (SBCEX) on the New England Mud Patch is the extent to which gradients exist in geoacoustic properties (sound speed and density) over the upper mud layer. This paper applies Bayesian inversion and uncertainty quantification to modal dispersion data, resolved by warping analysis, to consider whether mud-layer gradients are required to fit the data. The inversion is based on a hybrid seabed-model parameterized in terms of an upper sediment layer with a general representation of smooth, continuous gradients in geoacoustic properties based on Bernstein-polynomial basis functions, above an unknown number of discrete layers formulated trans-dimensionally. The inversion results are compared to those from other acoustic data sets collected in the region as well as to nearby core measurements.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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