MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1955517906 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0437

Indicator variables for a robust estimation of an acoustic index of abundance

2014· article· en· W1955517906 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicolas Bez, Cheikh-Baye Braham

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)Pelagic zoneSardinellaFisheryIndex (typography)Multivariate statisticsGeographyEnvironmental scienceOceanographyStatisticsGeologyMathematicsBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In North West Africa, pelagic fisheries are an essential economic sector. However, the scientific community fails to perform satisfactory assessments of key pelagic species like sardinella, owing to a lack of relevant indices of abundance to tune the model. This paper provides an alternative acoustic index based on a semiquantitative modelisation of acoustic densities. Acoustic energy is split into binomial variables coding for null, low, medium, large, and very large densities. A multivariate geostatistical approach allows (i) mapping the spatial distribution of classes of densities and (ii) computing a new acoustic index of abundance for Sardinella aurita and Sardinella maderensis. We used the surveys of RV Fridtjof Nansen (1995–2006) and RV Al-Awam (2007–2010). Our results indicated that empirical spatial structures were highly stable over time for both between areas and surveys. Co-kriging maps also showed that sardinella had stable hot spots of distribution. The indices of abundance developed in the present study were tested in an assessment procedure and outperformed all the indices used routinely by the FAO–CECAF (Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic) assessment working group.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→