MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362453547 · doi:10.1029/2022gl102216

Estimating Arctic Ocean Acoustic Travel Times Using an Earth System Model

2023· article· en· W4362453547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Siobhan Niklasson, Milena Veneziani, C. A. Rowe, Peter F. Worcester, Matthew A. Dzieciuch, S. L. Bilek, Stephen Price, Andrew Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsArcticEnvironmental scienceThe arcticRange (aeronautics)Climate changeMeteorologyGeologyClimatologyOceanographyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The hydroacoustic environment of a rapidly warming Arctic Ocean will be impacted by interconnected changes in the physical environment and increased human activity. Previous acoustic calculations will need to be updated to reflect current and future conditions. Earth System Models are important tools for making projections of changes in a wide range of physical processes under future climates. We present a comparison of Arctic acoustic travel times based on output from the Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model with measured travel times from the 2016–2017 Canada Basin Acoustic Propagation Experiment and with travel times predicted by empirical temperature and salinity observations. This comparison allows us to test the impact of changes in Arctic sound speed profiles on acoustic travel times and connects Arctic hydroacoustics with the changing Arctic environment as described by a climate model.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→