MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172303769 · doi:10.1121/10.0005367

Compressional wave attenuation in muddy sediments at the New England Mud Patch

2021· article· en· W3172303769 on OpenAlexaff
Charles W. Holland, Stan E. Dosso

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttenuationGeologyScalingMineralogySedimentary rockPaleontologyGeometryOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method for measuring in situ compressional wave attenuation exploiting the spectral decay of Bragg resonances is applied to sediments at the New England Mud Patch. Measurements of layer-averaged attenuation in a 10.3 m mud layer yield 0.04 {0.03 0.055} dB/mi kHz (braces indicate outer bounds); the attenuation is twice as large at a site with 3.2 m mud thickness. Both results are strongly influenced by a ∼1 m sand-mud transition interval, created by geological and biological processes which mix sand (at the base of the mud) into the mud. Above the transition interval, homogeneous mud exhibits an attenuation 0.01–0.02 dB/m kHz, lower than that in the sand-mud transition interval by a factor of 10. Informed by these and additional observations, mud attenuation in and above the transition interval appears to be roughly spatially invariant across the area, explaining the factor of two in attenuation between the two sites by simple depth scaling. Further, the ubiquity of the processes that form the transition interval suggests that the scaling may be broadly applied to other muddy continental shelves. In principle, attenuation predictions in shallow water could be substantively improved with a modest amount of geologic and biologic information. [Research supported by ONR Ocean Acoustics.]

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.263
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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