MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390713557 · doi:10.23977/jeeem.2023.060515

Multibeam bathymetry optimization problem based on geometric modeling and simulated annealing

2023· article· en· W4390713557 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wenjing Shi, Chong Xie, Zhi Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electrotechnology Electrical Engineering and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathymetrySimulated annealingDepth soundingSeafloor spreadingEcho soundingGeologySeabedGeodesyUnderwaterGeometryRemote sensingAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsGeophysicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Echo sounding is a technique commonly used in marine bathymetry to measure the depth and topography of water bodies. This paper combs the development process of echo sounding technology, briefly describes the principle of multibeam bathymetry, and its application in ocean bathymetry and water conservancy engineering. In order to get the optimized scheme of the survey line in the rectangular sea area, this paper firstly draws a spatial 3D scatter plot using the attached data to observe the general shape of the seabed surface. Then, polynomial fitting is utilized to fit the surface to all points to obtain the surface equation. From the scatter plot, it can be seen that the seafloor slope is relatively gentle, and if the formula for the coverage width when the seafloor slope is horizontal can be used for calculation, the model will be greatly simplified. The programming in this paper verifies the reasonableness of the conjecture, so the simplified formula can be used for subsequent calculations. In order to determine the number of survey lines, a simulated annealing algorithm was used, and finally, we designed 31 parallel survey lines in the north-south direction, with a total length of 155 nautical miles, and the omitted sea area accounted for 1.71% of the total area to be surveyed, and in the overlapping area, the overlap rate of the part of the overlap rate of more than 20% had a total length of zero.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 venueJournal of Electrotechnology Electrical Engineering and ManagementSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207