Marine mammal sightings by analysts of digital imagery versus aerial surveyors: a preliminary comparison
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sightings of marine mammals made by protected species observers (PSOs) on manned aircraft were compared to sightings obtained from later review of high-definition (HD) video and digital single lens reflex (DSLR) camera imagery covering the same swaths and collected concurrent with the PSO observations. If the data were comparable, future similar surveys could be conducted with unmanned aerial systems or manned aircraft without PSOs. Two reviews were conducted on the DSLR images: one used image enhancement and scanned the images at full resolution of the cameras (detailed review) and the other flashed images at one ninth resolution on monitors for three to four seconds using a slide show format to simulate the view a PSO would have out an airplane window. Image reviewers saw fewer animals in HD video than did PSOs but sample sizes were small. During detailed review of DSLR imagery, reviewers saw similar numbers of cetaceans and polar bears and slightly more pinnipeds as compared to PSOs. PSOs saw more animals than the quick review found, but changes to the quick review process are suggested that will increase detection rates. Additional data are required to confirm the results presented here and to determine whether photographic versus PSO detections are similar across varying survey conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it