MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063309188 · doi:10.1139/f01-152

Diagnostic tools for unbiased in situ target strength estimation

2001· article· en· W2063309188 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Stéphane Gauthier, George A. Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Ocean SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTarget strengthStatisticsFish <Actinopterygii>Range (aeronautics)Scale (ratio)In situMathematicsPhysicsBiologyFisheryMaterials scienceMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In situ target strength (TS) is theoretically the optimal measure to scale echo-integration values to fish density. In practice, in situ TS is often biased. The number of fish per sample volume (Nv) has been used to set a threshold density to reduce the bias attributable to multiple targets. However, order of magnitude differences in the Nv threshold have been reported within the theoretical range 0 < Nv [Formula: see text] 1. To investigate the use and scale-dependence of the Nv index, with the objective of achieving unbiased estimates of in situ TS, redfish (Sebastes spp.) aggregations were measured in Newfoundland waters. When averaged over large horizontal distances (large scale), TS was biased upwards if Nv exceeded 0.04. However, TS could be estimated at higher densities without bias using smaller measurement scales. To deal with these scale-dependent variations, we develop diagnostic tools based on Nv and an echo-count index (Tv), which enable unbiased estimates of the Nv threshold and in situ TS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations35
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207