Reanalyzing and Reinterpreting a Unique Set of Antarctic Acoustic Frazil Data Using River Frazil Results and Self-Validating 2-Frequency Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A previous analysis of Antarctic acoustic data relevant to quantifying frazil contributions to sea ice accretion is reconsidered to address inconsistencies with river frazil results acquired with similar instrumentation but augmented to suppress instrument icing. It was found that sound attenuation by consequent icing limited credible Antarctic acoustic frazil measurements to afternoon and early evening periods which are show to encompass daily minimums in frazil production. This reality was masked by use of an unvalidated liquid oblate spheroidal frazil characterization model which greatly overestimated frazil concentrations. Much lower frazil contents were derived for these periods using a robust 2-frequency characterization algorithm which incorporated a validated, alternative, theory of scattering by elastic solid spheres. Physical arguments based on these results and instrument depth data were strongly suggestive of maximal but, currently, unquantified frazil presences during unanalyzed heavily-iced late evening and morning time periods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".