Acoustics in Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The ICES Symposium on Acoustics in Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology (SAFAE) was held in Montpellier, France, from 10 to 14 June 2002. There were 303 participants from 37 countries, emphasizing the strongly international character of the meeting. This Symposium was the fifth organized by ICES in a series concerned with acoustics in fisheries and related fields. The first two were held in Bergen (1973 and 1982), the third in Seattle (1987), and the fourth in Aberdeen (1995; ICES Journal of Marine Science, Vol. 53, no. 2).1 To complete the historical picture, two symposia on the special problems of shallow-water acoustics should be mentioned, one held in London (1997) and one in Seattle (1999; Aquatic Living Resources, Vol. 13, no. 5). By 2002, however, it was seen that shallow-water, marine, and freshwater acoustics required a joint approach to problem-solving and the sharing of experience. It was therefore decided that this ICES Symposium would encompass all these applications within the general theme of acoustical methods for the study of aquatic biota and their exploitation. Organized under ICES auspices, the primary sponsors of the meeting were the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) and the Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER); co-sponsors were the Acoustical Society of America, the UK Institute of Acoustics, the US National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Société Française d'Acoustique. The co-conveners were François Gerlotto (IRD) and Jacques Massé (IFREMER). They were assisted by a Scientific Steering Committee comprising Pablo Carrera (Spain), David Farmer (Canada), Masahiko Furusawa (Japan), D. Van Holliday (USA), William Karp (USA), Ole Arve Misund (Norway), John Simmonds (UK), and Will Tesler (Russia). The conference secretariat was efficiently organized by Laurence Vicens from the Centre Halieutique of the IRD, which provided much logistical support, as did IFREMER, especially through the editorial work of Brigitte Milcendeau. The main objectives of the Symposium were: to bring together scientists with diverse interests in fisheries and aquatic acoustics, covering a broad range of environments; to present their research in this rapidly evolving field; to review what can be achieved with new technology and theoretical approaches; and to consider future directions of study. There was a big response to the call for papers. The 256 abstracts submitted were allocated among the following ten theme sessions: Acoustic-survey design, including data analysis Combination of methods, comparing acoustic and other methods of assessment Technology: innovations in equipment and data processing Identification and classification of echo traces Ecology, freshwater Ecology, marine water Avoidance: the response of fish to vessel noise, and biological acoustics Fish and plankton behaviour, and physiological studies Target strength, methods and results Target strength, modelling and theory There were 106 verbal presentations and 140 posters, which together gave participants a unique overview of a huge amount of multidisciplinary research. Symposia of this kind are essential if scientists are to have any chance of keeping up with the rapid pace of developments in the field. The publication of the proceedings is an important part of any symposium. The number of proposed manuscripts resulting from this one was substantial. It was therefore arranged that the papers would be published in special issues of two journals: part 1 in the ICES Journal of Marine Science, Vol 60, no. 3 (this volume) part 2 in and Aquatic Living Resources Vol. 16, no. 3. Papers were selected for each journal according to the relevant theme session. This volume contains 36 papers mainly on technological or physical topics (themes 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 above). A further 30 papers, those mainly on ecological or biological topics (themes 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 above), will be found in Aquatic Living Resources. Readers are encouraged to consult both special issues since, together, they comprise the full SAFAE proceedings. Indeed, it is important to consider the entire range of the activities explored at the meeting. This shows how cooperation between specialists from many disciplines can achieve much more than narrowly focused research. Whatever the background, there is a common purpose in this work, namely the study and protection of sustainable aquatic resources. The timely publication of these proceedings owes much to the referees (listed at the end of this volume), who prepared prompt and comprehensive reviews, and to the authors, who made the required revisions to their manuscripts within tight deadlines.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».