MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1860418548 · doi:10.1139/juvs-2015-0011

Testing marine conservation applications of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in a remote marine protected area

2015· article· en· W1860418548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNOAA ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationArmstrong Flight Research CenterNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMarine protected areaMarine conservationCoast guardResource (disambiguation)Remote sensingEnvironmental resource managementAerial surveySearch and rescueEnvironmental scienceGeographyHabitatComputer scienceEcologyEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2014, the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) utilized unique partnerships with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the US Coast Guard for the first comparative testing of two unmanned aircraft systems (UAS): the Ikhana (an MQ-9 Predator B) and a Puma All-Environment (Puma AE). A multidisciplinary team of scientists developed missions to explore the application of the two platforms to maritime surveillance and marine resource monitoring and assessment. Testing was conducted in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, a marine protected area in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. Nearly 30 h of footage were collected by the test platforms, containing imagery of marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, marine debris, and coastal habitat. Both platforms proved capable of collecting usable data, although imagery collected using the Puma was determined to be more useful for resource monitoring purposes. Lessons learned included the need for increased camera resolution, co-location of mission scientists and UAS operators, the influence of weather on the quality of imagery collected, post-processing resource demands, and the need for pre-planning of mission targets and approach to maximize efficiency.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.203 · 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