MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100525705

Acoustic behavior of dolphins in the Pacific Ocean: Implications for using passive acoustic methods for population studies

2008· article· en· W2100525705 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shannon Rankin, Julie N. Oswald, Jay Barlow

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransectOceanographyPopulationGeographyCetaceaBioacousticsGeologyFisheryAcousticsBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Southwest Fisheries Science Center has been conducting shipboard visual line-transect cetacean surveys for over 30 years, and combined visual and acoustic surveys for seven years. Full incorporation of passive acoustics as a tool for population assessment requires an understanding of the acoustic behavior of cetaceans as well as the limitations of the methods used in these surveys. Our research summarizes data collected during seven years of combined visual and acoustic surveys throughout the central and eastern North Pacific Ocean, ranging from the Aleutian Island chain in the north, to Peru in the south. Phonations from 2.034 dolphin schools were examined to better understand the acoustic behavior of cetaceans. Equally important are the cetacean schools that were seen but not heard, and this analysis includes an examination of these groups by species, group size, geographic location, and time of day. The results of this analysis allow us to take the first steps to incorporate passive acoustics into line-transect cetacean surveys.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207