MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123911411 · doi:10.3390/jmse9020126

Microbubbles as Proxies for Oil Spill Delineation in Field Tests

2021· article· en· W3123911411 on OpenAlexafffund
Yaomei Wang, Worakanok Thanyamanta, Craig Bulger, Neil Bose, Jimin Hwang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Science and Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsBubbleEnvironmental scienceUnderwaterMicrobubblesPlumeSonarResidence time (fluid dynamics)Petroleum engineeringMarine engineeringGeologyMeteorologyAcousticsOceanographyMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringUltrasoundEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To overcome the environmental impacts of releasing oil into the ocean for testing acoustic methods in field experiments using autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), environmentally friendly gas bubble plumes with low rise velocities are proposed in this research to be used as proxies for oil. An experiment was conducted to test the performance of a centrifugal-type microbubble generator in generating microbubble plumes and their practicability to be used in field experiments. Sizes of bubbles were measured with a Laser In-Situ Scattering and Transmissometry sensor. Residence time of bubble plumes was estimated by using a Ping360 sonar. Results from the experiment showed that a larger number of small bubbles were found in deeper water as larger bubbles rose quickly to the surface without staying in the water column. The residence time of the generated bubble plumes at the depth of 0.5 m was estimated to be over 5 min. The microbubble generator is planned to be applied in future field experiments, as it is effective in producing relatively long-endurance plumes that can be used as potential proxies for oil plumes in field trials of AUVs for delineating oil spills.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marine Science and EngineeringSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207