Identifying community-driven priority questions in acoustic backscatter research
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Remotely-sensed acoustic backscatter is an indispensable tool for seabed mapping, among other disciplines. Almost a decade after the GeoHab Backscatter Working Group published its guidelines and recommendations report, new technologies, new challenges and new questions have emerged. Given the range of potential backscatter research avenues, it can be difficult to align research programs with the priorities of the community of practice. Prioritization of backscatter research topics is thus necessary to establish a roadmap for acoustic backscatter research efforts. Methods We asked the international community working with acoustic backscatter to submit their priority research questions over a 5- to 10-year horizon. We analyzed and curated a total of 177 research questions from 73 contributors, and the resulting 104 questions were grouped into eight broad recurring themes: “Technologies”, “Calibration”, “Data acquisition and ground-truthing”, “Data processing”, “Post-processing, quality control, data handling, and curation”, “Data analysis”, “Data interpretation”, and “Applications and end uses”. A follow-up survey based on the final list of questions was distributed to characterize the community working with backscatter and to identify key research priorities. Results A total of 120 responses originating from 23 countries were used for the analyses. Most respondents were researchers (68%), while others were technicians (25%) or department or program managers (11%), among other roles. Affiliations of respondents included academia (43%), governmental agencies (37%), and industry/private sector (18%). After scaling the responses, the most commonly selected theme was “Post-processing, quality control, data handling, and curation”, followed by “Calibration” and “Data analysis”. Respondents consistently ranked several research questions as priorities. The two questions that were identified as priorities by over 25% of respondents were “How can we move towards absolute calibration of different systems to allow interregional comparisons?”, and “How can we quantify seafloor backscatter quality and develop standards similar to what exists with bathymetry?”. Discussion All eight themes are represented in the top 10 priority questions, underscoring the need for contributions to backscatter research from multiple perspectives to advance the field. The ranking of priority questions encourages collaboration within the community and will serve as a roadmap for backscatter research programs over the next decade.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle