An acoustical study of the properties and behaviour of sea ice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of this thesis is to utilize acoustical radiation from the Arctic ice cover to infer the response of sea ice to environmental forcing, and to sense remotely the mechanical properties of the ice. The work makes use of two experiments in the Canadian arctic undertaken by the Ocean Acoustics Group of the Institute of Ocean Sciences, which resulted in an extensive body of acoustical and related environmental data. Cracking sounds originating from both first and multi-year ice fracturing processes are analyzed. Data used in this thesis also include sound made by artificial sources. The survey of in situ ice conditions by air photography and synthetic radar imaging, and a crack distribution map based on observations made with a 3-D hydrophone array, reveal, for the first time, a close correlation between thermal cracking events and ice type. It is shown that most of the thermal cracks occur in irregular multi-year ice where there are exposed, snow-free surfaces. The study shows that acoustical radiation from some cracks implies a slip-stick seismic movement over the faults, and some cracks tend to radiate more high frequency sound downwards rather than sideways. This phenomenon is most clearly apparent in sounds made by artificial sources. Another interesting finding from this study is that the sound of cracking ice does not always exhibit a vertical dipole radiation pattern, and some cracks due to thermal tension on smooth first year ice radiate more energy horizontally. The observations have motivated the development of various analytical models. These models allow the observed acoustical features to be related to the length and depth of a crack, the thickness of the ice cover and its Young's modulus. The models also show that maximum sound radiation from a crack is in the direction of external forcing. Finally, it is found that noise due to rubbing between ice floes exhibits a narrow band spectrum. This phenomenon is investigated and a linear model derived shows that the observed peak frequency is that of the first mode horizontal shear wave triggered by frictional effects at the ice floe edge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".