The optimized interpolation of fish positions and speeds in an array of fixed acoustic receivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hedger, R. D., Martin, F., Dodson, J, J., Hatin, D., Caron, F., and Whoriskey, F. G. 2008. The optimized interpolation of fish positions and speeds in an array of fixed acoustic receivers. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1248–1259. The principal method for interpolating the positions and speeds of tagged fish within an array of fixed acoustic receivers is the weighted-mean method, which uses a box-kernel estimator, one of the simplest smoothing options available. This study aimed to determine the relative error of alternative, non-parametric regression methods for estimating these parameters. It was achieved by predicting the positions and speeds of three paths made through a dense array of fixed acoustic receivers within a coastal embayment (Gaspé Bay, Québec, Canada) by a boat with a GPS trailing an ultrasonic transmitter. Transmitter positions and speeds were estimated from the receiver data using kernel estimators, with box and normal kernels and the kernel size determined arbitrarily, and by several non-parametric methods, i.e. a kernel estimator, a smoothing spline, and local polynomial regression, with the kernel size or smoothing span determined by cross-validation. Prediction error of the kernel estimator was highly dependent upon kernel size, and a normal kernel produced less error than the box kernel. Of the methods using cross-validation, local polynomial regression produced least error, suggesting it as the optimal method for interpolation. Prediction error was also strongly dependent on array density. The local polynomial regression method was used to determine the movement patterns of a sample of tagged Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolt and kelt, and American eel (Anguilla rostrata). Analysis of the estimates from local polynomial regression suggested that this was a suitable method for monitoring patterns of fish movement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".