MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030843123 · doi:10.1121/1.4764500

Towards mapping Nereocystis luetkeana kelp beds: using the holonomic iROV SeaBiscuit and sonar fusion

2012· article· en· W2030843123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin J. Williamson, M.J. Balchin, William Megill

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKelpSonarMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingOceanographyGeologyEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping the density and distribution of kelp beds and assessing change over yearly cycles are important objectives for coastal oceanography. The intelligent, position-aware, holonomic ROV (iROV) SeaBiscuit has been designed specifically for this nearshore 3D mapping application. With the aim of providing high-usability maps on a budget, SeaBiscuit fuses the data from two complementary sonars to explore and map the nearshore. Holonomic motion in the horizontal plane and a streamlined profile designed to aid station-keeping provide the high degree of manoeuvrability required to operate in this complex environment. The orthogonal arrangement of a forward-facing multibeam sonar and a 360 degree scanning sonar provide increased coverage and allow 3D maps to be generated in-transit using the holonomic capabilities of the vehicle. Successful field trials saw the mapping of a piling dock before the surveys moved to the kelp beds of British Columbia, Canada. SeaBiscuit was initially calibrated and tested on an 'artificial' kelp bed of kelp stipes transplanted to a sheltered but open-water real world environment. The first successful open ocean kelp bed maps were gathered in 2011. It was possible to identify clusters of stipes and to convert this into a measure of biomass across the kelp bed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207