MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127762622 · doi:10.1016/s1054-3139(03)00057-2

Evaluation of a Doppler sonar system for fisheries applications

2003· article· en· W2127762622 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Tollefsen, Len Zedel

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonarDoppler effectMarine engineeringSampling (signal processing)Environmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryAcousticsComputer scienceRemote sensingGeologyTelecommunicationsEngineeringPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report on tests of a general-purpose, coherent, Doppler sonar system undertaken to explore its capabilities when applied to detecting discrete fish targets. This 250-kHz, 30 kHz bandwidth instrument provides for phase coding of the transmit pulses and coherent sampling of successive acoustic returns. Towtank tests were used to determine the basic operating capabilities of the system. Under these ideal conditions a single-ping velocity accuracy of between 3 and 8 cm s−1 can be achieved approaching the theoretical limit for this instrument. Field trials were undertaken on the Fraser River in British Columbia near the Pacific Salmon Commission's field site, allowing comparisons with conventional fisheries sonar systems. While the long-term goal is to apply the Doppler sonar system in a larger-scale marine environment, the passage of migrating salmon provides an ideal test opportunity with fish of predictable and well defined swimming behaviour. Individual fish-swimming speed can be measured with an accuracy of between 5 and 10 cm s−1. By comparison, water velocity measurements made with the same instrument can only achieve a theoretical accuracy of 60 cm s−1.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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