MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076998478 · doi:10.1675/063.032.0123

Accuracy of Depth Recorders

2009· article· en· W2076998478 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWaterbirds · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingArcticThe arcticGeographyEnvironmental scienceOceanographyEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depth recorders are among the most useful tools available for ornithologists interested in waterbird foraging behavior. Despite their widespread use in the literature, there is little information available about their precision and accuracy, including, for the case of TDRs, device drift. We examined the uncertainty associated with two types of depth-recorders deployed on Thick-billed Murres Uria lomvia in the Canadian Arctic in 2007 for up to 48 hours. The maximum depth obtained by capillary tube maximum-depth gauges (MDGs), a cheap and simple depth-recorder, was highly correlated (R2 = 0.87) with maximum depth obtained by electronic time-depth recorders (TDRs) attached to the same bird (n = 29) up to depths of 100 m. Deeper than 100 m or in deployments of 144 hours, MDGs were unreliable. We suggest that the maximum depth for Thick-billed Murres in the Canadian Arctic is about 150 m, rather than the 210 meters previously reported using MDGs recorders, and that caution should be used when quoting maximal maximum depths for species diving deeper than 100 m using this method. We also attached two Lotek TDRs to the same bird (n = 18) and examined the similarity of the two recorders. The average difference increased from about 0.5 m near the surface to about 1.0 m below 60 m, with extreme differences of up to 4 m obtained. Furthermore, TDRs submerged to known depth were accurate within ± 2 m. The effect of these variations on measurements of maximum and average depth and duration was about 0.6–1.3 m (depth) or s (duration), which is similar to the manufacturer's accuracy specifications (±1%). Finally, we examined the drift (offset from zero at the surface) within the TDRs. Drift varied from -2.5 to 2 m, with 9 out of 36 recorders showing no drift, and no change amongst years for individual recorders. Drift was lowest (most negative) at the colony, higher during flight and highest (most positive) on the water surface, despite very small differences in altitude (<50 m). We suggest that drift may be a useful tool for quantifying at-sea behavior, especially in conjunction with temperature logs. We conclude that MDGs are reliable up to 100 m and within 48 hours, and that TDRs are precise within ±2%, but that more research needs to be completed on device accuracy and precision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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