MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220811268 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-12128

Applying a multi-method framework to analyze the multispectral acoustic response of the seafloor

2022· preprint· en· W4220811268 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro S. Menandro, Alex Cardoso Bastos, Benjamin Misiuk, Craig J. Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabedMultispectral imageBathymetryRemote sensingGeologyBackscatter (email)Echo soundingComputer scienceOceanographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improvements to acoustic seafloor mapping systems have motivated novel benthic geological and biological research. Multibeam echosounders (MBES) have become a mainstream tool for acoustic remote sensing of the seabed, and recently, multispectral MBES backscatter has been developed to characterize the seabed in greater detail, yet methods for the use of these data is still being explored. Here, we evaluate the potential for seabed discrimination using multispectral backscatter data within a multi-method framework. We present a novel MBES dataset acquired using four operating frequencies (170 kHz, 280 kHz, 400 kHz, and 700 kHz) near the Doce River mouth, situated on the eastern Brazilian continental shelf. Image-based and angular range analysis methods were applied to characterize the multifrequency response of the seabed. The large amount of information resulting from these methods confounds a unified manual seabed segmentation solution. The data were therefore summarized using a combination of dimensionality reduction and density-based clustering, enabling hierarchical spatial classification of the seabed with sparse ground-truth. The use of multispectral technology was fundamental to understanding the acoustic response of each frequency – achieving a benthic prediction in agreement with earlier studies in this region, but providing spatial information at a much greater detail than was previously realized. For most muddy areas, the median uncalibrated backscatter values from the mosaics for all frequencies were low (slightly higher for lower frequencies). The lower frequency was presumably detecting the sub-bottom, while the higher frequency reflected primarily off the surface, potentially indicating a thick muddy deposit in this area. In these regions, the angular response curve shows high backscatter level loss, with a more pronounced backscatter level loss for the higher frequency. Over a sandy high-backscatter feature, results show high scattering across the entire swath; sediments coarser than sand were poorly resolved by comparison. The density-based clustering enabled identification of two well-defined clusters, and at a higher level of detail, the muddy region could be further divided to produce four sub-clusters. Therefore, findings suggested that the multifrequency acoustic data provided greater discrimination of muddy and fine sand sediments than coarser sediments in this area. Backscatter data has been analyzed in several ways in the context of seafloor classification, namely: visual interpretation of mosaics, textural analysis, image-based analysis, and angular range analysis. Advantages and disadvantages of each make the choice methodology challenging; their combined use may achieve better results via consensus. Several supervised and unsupervised techniques have been applied in seabed classification, including different clustering approaches. Density-based clustering has received little attention for seabed classification, and was successfully applied here to synthesize different approaches into a classified output. Further research on the discrimination power of multispectral backscatter and comparison between clustering techniques will be useful to inform on the application of these approaches for mapping seabed sediments.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207