MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251271094 · doi:10.1121/1.4805233

Seabed roughness parameters for the Malta Plateau from joint backscatter and reflection inversion

2013· article· en· W4251271094 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin Steininger, Charles W. Holland, Stan E. Dosso, Jan Dettmer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyScatteringSeabedResidualSurface finishBackscatter (email)OpticsMaterials scienceMathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents seabed interface-scattering and geoacoustic parameters estimated on the Malta Plateau, Mediterranean Sea, by joint Bayesian inversion of monostatic backscatter and spherical-wave reflection-coefficient data. The data are modeled assuming a stack of homogeneous fluid sediment layers overlying an elastic basement. The scattering model also assumes a randomly rough water-sediment interface with a von Karman roughness power spectrum. Scattering and reflection data are inverted simultaneously using a population of interacting Markov-chains to sample roughness and geoacoustic parameters as well as residual error parameters. Trans-dimensional sampling is applied to treat the unknown number of sediment layers and unknown autoregressive order of the errors (to represent residual correlation). Results are considered in terms of marginal posterior probability profiles and distributions, which quantify the effective data information content to resolve scattering/geoacoustic parameters and structure. Results indicate well-defined scattering (roughness) parameters in good agreement with existing measurements, and a multi-layer sediment profile over a high-speed (elastic) basement, consistent with independent knowledge of sand layers over limestone. [Work supported by ONR.]

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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