MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106853788 · doi:10.1016/s1054-3139(03)00046-8

Application of in situ target-strength estimations in lakes: examples from rainbow-smelt surveys in Lakes Erie and Champlain

2003· article· en· W2106853788 on OpenAlexaff
Lars G. Rudstam, Scott L. Parker, Donald W. Einhouse, Larry D. Witzel, David M. Warner, J.L Stritzel, Donna L. Parrish, Patrick J. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersNew York Sea Grant, State University of New YorkNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
KeywordsSmeltTarget strengthFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceAbundance (ecology)FisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Acoustic abundance of fish depends directly on the target strength (TS) of the fish surveyed. We analyzed 70 and 120 kHz acoustic data from two lakes with abundant rainbow-smelt (Osmerus mordax) populations. Using repeated surveys through the summer growing season, we derived a relationship between TS (dB) and fish length L (cm) at 120 kHz (TS = 19.9 log10 L − 67.8). Values for 70 kHz were similar. In situ TS increased with fish density, indicating a bias from accepting multiple targets at high fish densities. Correcting for this bias increased estimates of smelt abundance by up to 18% in Lake Erie and up to 100% in Lake Champlain. Multiple modes in the TS distributions observed for older fish do not reflect different size groups, as the same modes can be observed from measurements from a single fish. Smelt released gas bubbles during the evening ascent, and these bubbles had TS (−60 to −58 dB) within the range of TS observed from the fish. Gas-bubble release occurred mostly during the migration. Conducting surveys after the ascent is completed will decrease bias associated with counting bubbles as fish.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations72
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207