MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170883638 · doi:10.1109/joe.2021.3075824

Transdimensional Inversion on the New England Mud Patch Using High-Order Modes

2021· article· en· W3170883638 on OpenAlexaff
Julien Bonnel, Stan E. Dosso, David P. Knobles, Preston S. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsSeabedInversion (geology)Image warpingGeologyAcousticsSeismologyComputer scienceOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents geoacoustic inversion results for modal-dispersion data collected during the 2017 Seabed Characterization Experiment on the New England Mud Patch, an area where the seabed is characterized by an upper layer of mud. The experiment utilized a combustive sound source and a vertical line array of receivers at 5.4-km range. Using a careful combination of source deconvolution and warping time–frequency analysis, modal dispersion data (arrival time as a function of frequency) are estimated for 18 modes between modes 1 and 21. The modal dispersion data are then used to estimate seabed geoacoustic profiles and uncertainties via transdimensional Bayesian inversion. This article demonstrates the capacity to estimate high-order modes using warping. Comparing inversion results obtained with subsets of (lower order) modes to those obtained with the full set of available modes highlights the rich data information content carried by high-order modes. The results suggest a small sound-speed increase over the first 8 m of the seabed, the upper portion of the mud layer, which some earlier studies found to be isospeed. Overall, the inversion results are consistent with <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">in situ</i> measurements, as well as with previous geoacoustic inversion results.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Oceanic EngineeringSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207