Prediction and measurement of acoustic transmission loss of acoustic window with composite sandwich structure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Underwater acoustic detection sensors are mounted on the outside of the submarine; the acoustic window for protecting these sensors must be structurally robust while also minimizing any deterioration of sensor's sound detection performance. These two conditions are typically satisfied simultaneously by using composite materials with acoustic window materials. However, since such composite material is manufactured by laminating fibers, there is the probability that delamination occurs, in which an air layer is formed inside, due to manufacturing process errors. Delamination inside the acoustic window degrades the sensor's acoustic performance and results in a failure of military operations. In the case of composites composed of sandwich structures located in the central part, the possibility of internal delamination is higher than in a single composite material. Therefore, it is very important to discriminate the presence or absence of internal delamination after producing an acoustic window. This article uses numerical and analytical methods to determine the internal delamination of the acoustic window fabricated with a sandwich structure. In addition, the results were analyzed and compared through ultrasonic measurement and acoustic transmission loss test.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it