A maximum likelihood approach for identifying dive bouts improves accuracy, precision and objectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Foraging behaviour frequently occurs in bouts, and considerable efforts to properly define those bouts have been made because they partly reflect different scales of environmental variation. Methods traditionally used to identify such bouts are diverse, include some level of subjectivity, and their accuracy and precision is rarely compared. Therefore, the applicability of a maximum likelihood estimation method (MLM) for identifying dive bouts was investigated and compared with a recently proposed sequential differences analysis (SDA). Using real data on interdive durations from Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella Peters, 1875), the MLM-based model produced briefer bout ending criterion (BEC) and more precise parameter estimates than the SDA approach. The MLM-based model was also in better agreement with real data, as it predicted the cumulative frequency of differences in interdive duration more accurately. Using both methods on simulated data showed that the MLM-based approach produced less biased estimates of the given model parameters than the SDA approach. Different choices of histogram bin widths involved in SDA had a systematic effect on the estimated BEC, such that larger bin widths resulted in longer BECs. These results suggest that using the MLM-based procedure with the sequential differences in interdive durations, and possibly other dive characteristics, may be an accurate, precise, and objective tool for identifying dive bouts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".