MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412973273 · doi:10.1121/10.0038326

The ray angle diagram in ocean acoustic propagation

2025· article· en· W4412973273 on OpenAlexaff
Henry Cox

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsWKB approximationOpticsAdiabatic processAdiabatic invariantTilt (camera)Transmission lossReflection (computer programming)Geometrical acousticsComputational physicsGeometryMathematical analysisMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seldom mentioned ray angle diagram (RAD) allows visualization of important properties of acoustic propagation. Based on the sound speed profile and Snell’s law, the RAD presents depth on the ordinate and tan θ(z; cn) on the abscissa for the full ray cycle of selected rays, parameterized by the ray parameter, cn. The angle θ(z; cn) is the angle the ray makes with the horizontal at depth z. Equivalently, it is the angle of tilt of the wavefront at depth z. Because many useful characteristics of acoustic propagation depend on tan θ(z; cn), it is used as the abscissa of the RAD. The tilt integral is defined as the integral of tan θ(z; cn) with respect to z between the upper and lower limits of the ray. The tilt integral can be visualized by an “area” on the RAD. The WKB phase integral, which relates rays and normal modes, is an integral of tan θ(z; cn) with respect to depth. Individual mode characteristics and number of propagating normal modes are represented on the RAD. Relationships to the adiabatic invariant, time delay for matched field processing, depth dependence of ambient noise, range-averaged transmission loss, and low frequency mode cut-off are discussed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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