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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samantha Brooke, David Graham, Todd Jacobs, Charles L. Littnan, Mark Manuel, Robert O’Conner

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle SystemsSame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207