MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2013830873 · doi:10.1121/1.3589033

Acoustic sea bed classification of Pacific Sand Lance habitat.

2011· article· en· W2013830873 on OpenAlexaff
B. Biffard, N. Ross Chapman, Stephen F. Bloomer, Cliff Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabedGeologyEcho soundingOceanographyHabitatSedimentDiel vertical migrationGeomorphologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the results of preliminary acoustic sea bed classification surveys in three areas in the southern Gulf Islands of British Columbia to develop methods for mapping habitat of Pacific Sand Lance (PSL). Little is known about this important species, and much less is known about their use of subtidal burying habitat for overwintering. Grid surveys were run using a dual-frequency (24 and 200 kHz) single beam echosounder, and the data were classified using conventional statistical segmentation procedures using QTC IMPACT. This type of seabed classification separates the seabed into self-consistent regions called seabed classes based on acoustic diversity—primarily on the basis of echo shape. Sediment grab samples and video were also obtained to provide ground-truth and labels for the acoustic seabed classes. The acoustic seabed classification surveys were successful in identifying subtidal sands with low fractions of fines (silts) and sand wave fields among a variety of seabed types identified. Grab samples captured PSL buried in the medium to coarse subtidal sands, mostly in sand wave fields, and mostly in winter. Future work will be to observe diel migrations and develop methods to estimate biomass of buried PSL based on seabed classification.

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)0.001
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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→