Echolocation behavior of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena around chemically enhanced gill nets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The echolocation behavior of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena around gillnets was monitored to test their response to chemically (BaSO 4 ) enhanced gill nets, designed to be more acoustically reflective than commercial nets. Field trials were conducted between 22 July and 31 August 2000 in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Echolocation clicks were continuously monitored with Porpoise Echolocation Detectors (PODs). Commercial and experimental (chemically enhanced) gill nets were set for groundfish in water depths from 100 to 130 m. Echolocation occurrence (the proportion of 10 s intervals during which clicks were detected) and echolocation rate (the number of clicks h -1 ) were measured. The PODs varied in their detection ability, so comparisons between commercial and enhanced nets were made with individual PODs. Neither echolocation rate nor occurrence differed with net type for any POD. Significantly more echolocation was detected during the day than at night. Echolocation rate and echolocation occurrence varied with depth and location, possibly reflecting concomitant variation in the relative abundance of porpoises and/or their prey. We conclude that porpoises do not respond to the acoustic reflectivity of the modified nets. Rather, the effectiveness of these nets is apparently due to other factors, such as their physical properties, particularly their stiffness.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it