MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400288731 · doi:10.1121/10.0027106

Echo sounding with the shock wave generated by the implosion of an instrument pressure housing

2024· article· en· W4400288731 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Loranger, David R. Barclay, Michael J. Buckingham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplosionEcho (communications protocol)Echo soundingDepth soundingShock waveSounding rocketAcousticsShock (circulatory)PhysicsGeologyRemote sensingOpticsMechanicsComputer scienceAstronomyOceanographyMedicineNuclear physicsPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In December 2014, what was intended to be a passive-acoustic experiment at the Challenger Deep, suddenly became an active-acoustic experiment. Two free-falling, passive-acoustic instrument platforms, each with a suite of hydrophones, a CTD, a sound speed sensor and a glass-sphere pressure housing containing the electronics, were deployed from the R/V Falkor. One of the platforms imploded at a nominal depth of 9000 m. The highly energetic, broadband shock wave created by the implosion was recorded by the surviving platform. The shock wave reflected multiple times from the seafloor and the surface and the arrival times of the multiple reflections were used to obtain a highly constrained estimate of the Challenger Deep: 10 983 ± 6 m. We will discuss the signal processing methods used and propagated uncertainty in this highly constrained estimate. We will also discuss how this estimate of the depth of the deepest part of the ocean compares with other estimates of the depth of the Challenger Deep, including an update on estimates obtained following the publication of this study.

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)0.000
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 score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207