MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013272731 · doi:10.1121/1.4783882

Multifrequency acoustic observations of zooplankton in Knight Inlet, B.C

2004· article· en· W2013272731 on OpenAlexaff
Mark V. Trevorrow, David L. Mackas, Mark C. Benfield

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsNorth Pacific Marine Science Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZooplanktonFjordOceanographyInletScatteringSillEcho soundingPlanktonDiel vertical migrationGeologyBackscatter (email)Environmental scienceAbundance (ecology)PhysicsFisheryBiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A collaborative investigation of midwater zooplankton aggregations in a coastal fjord was conducted in November 2002. Midwater aggregations of zooplankton in a coastal fjord were sampled and mapped using a calibrated, three-frequency (38, 120, and 200 kHz) vessel-based echo-sounder system, a multinet towed zooplankton net (BIONESS), and a high-resolution in situ camera system (ZOOVIS). Dense daytime layers of euphausiids and amphipods near 70- to 90-m depth were found in the lower reaches of the inlet, especially concentrated by tidal flows around a sill which rises above the layer. Quantitative euphausiid and amphipod backscattering measurements, combined with in situ species, size, and abundance estimates, were found to agree closely with recent size- and orientation-averaged fluid–cylinder scattering models produced by Stanton et al. Also, in situ scattering measurements of physonect siphonophores were found to have a much stronger low-frequency (38 kHz) scattering strength, in agreement with a simple bubble scattering model. [Work supported by Dr. J. Eckman, ONR code 322BC.]

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)0.000
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 score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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