MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019051846 · doi:10.1139/f10-075

Development and application of an empirical multifrequency method for backscatter classification

2010· article· en· W2019051846 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alex De Robertis, Denise McKelvey, Patrick H. Ressler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollockBackscatter (email)Abundance (ecology)Relative species abundanceEnvironmental scienceFisheryKey (lock)Sampling (signal processing)TaxonOceanographyEcologyComputer scienceGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the feasibility of identifying major acoustic scatters in North Pacific ecosystems based on empirical measurements of relative frequency response. Acoustic measurements in areas where trawl catches were dominated by single taxa indicated that it might be possible to discern among key groups of scatterers such as fish with gas-filled swimbladders, euphausiids, myctophids, and jellyfish. To establish if walleye pollock ( Theragra chalcogramma ), a key species in the ecosystem, can be separated reliably from other groups under prevailing conditions, we developed a method based on the normal deviate (or Z score) to identify backscatter consistent with the pollock relative frequency response. We evaluated the performance of the method by comparing it with the traditional method of species identification (i.e., directed trawl catches and subjective interpretation of echograms) during five large-scale acoustic surveys of the eastern Bering Sea. Pollock abundance estimates employing the multifrequency method were highly correlated with those using the traditional method, which indicates that the multifrequency method performs well in this situation. In this environment, multifrequency methods will allow more inferences to be drawn when direct sampling of organisms is limited and will also complement existing abundance surveys by improving species classification and providing information about key nontarget species.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.318
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations152
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207