Automatic recognition of fin and blue whale calls for real-time monitoring in the St. Lawrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring blue and fin whales summering in the St. Lawrence Estuary with passive acoustics requires call recognition algorithms that can cope with the heavy shipping noise of the St. Lawrence Seaway and with multipath propagation characteristics that generate overlapping copies of the calls. In this paper, the performance of three time-frequency methods aiming at such automatic detection and classification is tested on more than 2000 calls and compared at several levels of signal-to-noise ratio using typical recordings collected in this area. For all methods, image processing techniques are used to reduce the noise in the spectrogram. The first approach consists in matching the spectrogram with binary time-frequency templates of the calls (coincidence of spectrograms). The second approach is based on the extraction of the frequency contours of the calls and their classification using dynamic time warping (DTW) and the vector quantization (VQ) algorithms. The coincidence of spectrograms was the fastest method and performed better for blue whale A and B calls. VQ detected more 20 Hz fin whale calls but with a higher false alarm rate. DTW and VQ outperformed for the more variable blue whale D calls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".