MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2989137382 · doi:10.1121/1.5137338

Arctic acoustic transmission loss variability due to ice cover during the year 2016–2017

2019· article· en· W2989137382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew A. Dzieciuch, Peter F. Worcester

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArctic ice packGeologyCover (algebra)Transmission lossSea iceArcticEnvironmental scienceUnderwaterClimatologyAcousticsOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the course of one year, underwater acoustic transmissions were made in the deep-water of the Beaufort Sea as part of the Canada Basin Acoustic Propagation Experiment (CANAPE). The transmissions were monitored at a variety of ranges (100–300 km)and the low-frequency signals (200–300 Hz) showed a strong sensitivity to the evolving ice cover. As the ice cover grew from absent in the mid-September, to its thickest and roughest in late April, the transmission loss grew also. The experimental setup included the ability to beamform so that the arrival pattern could be easily resolved into early individual ray-paths and late near-surface arrivals. This capability was used to estimate the TL variation with the angle of interaction with the ice and with the number of ice reflections. The thickness of the ice cover and roughness was monitored at 6 mooring sites. This allows one to compare the measured losses to the expected loss from the ice-free state. The amount of excess loss can then be estimated via the method of small perturbations for example.

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)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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