MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013791807 · doi:10.1121/10.0000937

Nonlinear time-warping made simple: A step-by-step tutorial on underwater acoustic modal separation with a single hydrophone

2020· article· en· W3013791807 on OpenAlexaff
Julien Bonnel, Aaron M. Thode, Dana Wright, Ross Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage warpingComputer scienceAcousticsUnderwaterHydrophoneUnderwater acousticsMultipath propagationNonlinear systemDynamic time warpingSignal processingArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical ocean acoustic experiments involve the use of synchronized arrays of sensors. However, the need to cover large areas and/or the use of small robotic platforms has evoked interest in single-hydrophone processing methods for localizing a source or characterizing the propagation environment. One such processing method is "warping," a non-linear, physics-based signal processing tool dedicated to decomposing multipath features of low-frequency transient signals (frequency f < 500 Hz), after their propagation through shallow water (depth D < 200 m) and their reception on a distant single hydrophone (range r > 1 km). Since its introduction to the underwater acoustics community in 2010, warping has been adopted in the ocean acoustics literature, mostly as a pre-processing method for single receiver geoacoustic inversion. Warping also has potential applications in other specialties, including bioacoustics; however, the technique can be daunting to many potential users unfamiliar with its intricacies. Consequently, this tutorial article covers basic warping theory, presents simulation examples, and provides practical experimental strategies. Accompanying supplementary material provides matlab code and simulated and experimental datasets for easy implementation of warping on both impulsive and frequency-modulated signals from both biotic and man-made sources. This combined material should provide interested readers with user-friendly resources for implementing warping methods into their own 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.025

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations87
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207