Evaluation of UAS for photographic re-identification of bowhead whales,<i>Balaena mysticetus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have the potential to collect high-resolution photographs of marine mammals for life-history studies without disturbing the species being studied. We conducted a pilot study near Igloolik, Nunavut, in early July 2013 to collect identification-quality photographs of bowhead whales and record the responses of the whales to overflights by an UAS. Operating under a restrictive line-of-sight permit from Transport Canada, we successfully collected high quality photographs of bowhead whales and none of the whales overflown responded to the overflights in an observable manner. If the UAS were operated under a beyond-line-of-sight permit, the UAS could be used to search for whales ahead of and to the side of the survey vessels making it more efficient to find whales to photograph. Even when operating under the restrictive line-of-sight permit, large numbers of whales could be photographed, which would provide important life-history information on the poorly studied Eastern Canada – West Greenland population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".