MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of the Impact of Flow on the Underwater Acoustic Channel

2021· article· en· W4213344339 on OpenAlexaff
J. Alasdair Macdonald, Hossein Ghannadrezaii, Jean‐François Bousquet, David R. Barclay

Bibliographic record

VenueOCEANS 2021: San Diego – Porto · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderwaterChannel (broadcasting)AcousticsUnderwater acoustic communicationTurbulenceDoppler effectSIGNAL (programming language)Flow (mathematics)Mean flowComputer scienceAmplitudeOpen-channel flowRay tracing (physics)Marine engineeringTelecommunicationsGeologyPhysicsMeteorologyEngineeringMechanicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliable and power efficient underwater communication systems that can adapt to the mediums changing nature can be designed with knowledge of the physical underwater environment This paper discusses a stochastic model for an underwater acoustic channel that takes into consideration the effects of flow and turbulence on the acoustic signal in environments subject to some of the highest tides in the world. The model that relies fundamentally on ray tracing generates an ensemble of time-varying channel characteristics by capturing the effect of known environmental changes including changes in sound speed due to mean and turbulent flow. The model is used to extract the channel characteristics such as channel gain, delay spread, Doppler spread, and the arrival time of the signal. By validating simulation results with real measurements taken in the Bay of Fundy, it is demonstrated that the mean flow has significant impact on various channel characteristics. In fact, flow causes large variance on the path that is subject to a surface bounce. This effectively induces a channel that has amplitude variation and delay spread variation, as a function of tide height.

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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOCEANS 2021: San Diego – PortoSame topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207