MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1966264249 · doi:10.1121/1.4785639

Echo integration of nonuniform fish densities

2005· article· en· W1966264249 on OpenAlexaff
R. Kieser, John B. Hedgepeth

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>Echo (communications protocol)Beam (structure)Distribution (mathematics)A priori and a posterioriConstant (computer programming)TransducerAcousticsUniform distribution (continuous)Backscatter (email)Environmental scienceOpticsPhysicsGeologyMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsTelecommunicationsMathematical analysisFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Echo integration is a well recognized method for measuring backscatter intensity and for estimating fish density. EI is appropriate for high and low fish densities as long as the target distribution is uniform across the beam. This is generally the case in mobile applications that use a downward looking transducer. However uniform fish distribution across the beam cannot be assumed in riverine applications that use a stationary side looking system. Observed distributions are often very nonuniform especially when migrating fish are surface or bottom oriented. EI may still be possible if the relative vertical fish distribution is known and reasonably constant over time. A priori estimates of the vertical fish density distribution could be from split-beam observations when densities are lower or from video observations. A model for the EI of nonuniform fish densities is developed, typical results are simulated to test the model and its application is discussed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→