Acoustic measurement of the behavioral response of Arctic riverine fish to seismic sound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renewed interest in oil and gas development in the Canadian Arctic has lead to proposals to conduct seismic surveys along the entire length of the Mackenzie River. However, little is known about the effects of seismic sound (air guns) on fish in riverine environments. In 2004, Fisheries and Oceans Canada carried out a study to look at the effects of seismic sound on the physiology and behavior of fish in the Mackenzie River. The behavioral component used a split-beam acoustic system to measure the response of fish to varying levels of seismic sound. Targets were tracked with SonarDatas Echoview Tracking Module. Two experiments were carried out. In the first, the acoustic launch was anchored over a concentration of fish while the seismic barge approached. This experiment simulated the conditions proposed for the actual seismic survey. During the second, the acoustic launch was allowed to drift over concentrations of fish. The seismic barge was stationary. When individual fish were seen in the acoustic beam, the air guns were fired. This experiment measured the overt fright response of fish to the seismic sound. Initial results from both studies indicate that fish show no direct behavioral response to the seismic sound.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".