MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967284306 · doi:10.1121/1.4777388

Fish schooling behavior inferred from differences between backscatter levels in Doppler sonar beams

2003· article· en· W1967284306 on OpenAlexaff
Len Zedel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackscatter (email)Doppler effectClupeaSonarFish <Actinopterygii>CalibrationBeam (structure)HerringScatteringShoaling and schoolingGeologyAcousticsEnvironmental sciencePhysicsGeodesyOpticsFisheryOceanographyTelecommunicationsComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The general availability of Doppler profilers on survey ships provides a convenient source of acoustic backscatter data. Aside from calibration issues, caution must be exercised when analyzing this data because each of the diverging beams has a different interaction angle with the scatterers. In particular, for targets with directional scattering characteristics a different backscatter strength will be seen in each beam. The availability of data from multiple beam directions can however provide information on scatterer orientation when groups of such scatterers undertake coherent motion. This effect is demonstrated in observations of Norwegian spring spawning herring (Clupea harengus). In data collected while these fish are actively migrating with mean swimming speeds of 20 cm s−1, a difference of 5 dB is seen in volume backscatter strength depending on the direction of fish movement with respect to the acoustic beams. In contrast, in data collected when these fish schools have less well defined movements with a mean swimming speed of less than 10 cm s−1, a difference of less than 1 dB is seen.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207