MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229914131 · doi:10.1121/1.4800540

Source bearing and range estimation using an ice-mounted tri-axial geophone

2013· article· en· W4229914131 on OpenAlexaff
Stan E. Dosso

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeophoneGeologyBearing (navigation)GeodesyRange (aeronautics)AttenuationShear wavesSea iceSeismologyAcousticsShear (geology)OpticsMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents results from Arctic field trials to estimate the bearing, range, and depth of an acoustic source in the water column using seismic particle motion measured at a tri-axial geophone on the sea ice surface. Measurements were carried out on smooth, rough, and ridged annual ice, and on a multi-year ice floe. Impulsive acoustic sources were deployed in the water at a variety of bearings and ranges from 0.2-50 km. Source bearings are estimated by applying polarization filters to suppress shear waves with transverse particle motion and computing the incident power as a function of radial look angle; the inherent 180-degree ambiguity is resolved by requiring prograde particle motion in the vertical-radial plane. Results indicate good bearing estimation (<10-degree average errors) at all ranges with little dependence on ice type. Source range and depth is estimated from the time difference between the water-borne arrival and ice seismic waaves. Results are limited due to strong attenuation of the seismic waves, with good range/depth estimation to <1 km for smooth annual and multi-year ice and <0.5 km for rough ice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207