An evaluation of active acoustic methods for detection of marine mammals in the Canadian Beaufort Sea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A commercially available fisheries sonar was mounted on an icebreaker and evaluated during an environmental baseline study in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, to determine the applicability of active acoustic monitoring (AAM) for marine mammal detection by comparing marine mammal observer (MMO) visual sightings and active acoustic detections. During 170 h of simultaneous MMO and AAM, 115 bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) and four beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) were visually sighted by MMOs, while 59 sonar detections of bowhead whales occurred using AAM. The fisheries sonar detected 92% of the cetaceans observed within 2,000 m. Additional observations of ringed seals (Pusa hispida) and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) were recorded both by MMOs and AAM. Comparative results indicate that a commercially available active acoustic system can consistently detect marine mammals within varying ranges dictated by water column properties. Shallow environments and strong pycnoclines currently present challenges to AAM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".