MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130028475 · doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.03.007

Acoustic detection of a scallop bed from a single-beam echosounder in the St. Lawrence

2005· article· en· W2130028475 on OpenAlexafffund
Estelle Hutin, Yvan Simard, Philippe Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsScallopEcho soundingSeabedGeologyPrincipal component analysisBathymetryBayBenthic zoneGround truthOceanographyFisheryMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Single-beam seabed echoes combined with epi-macrobenthos photographs were used to remotely detect a scallop bed and characterize the specific acoustic signal of Iceland scallop (Chlamys islandica). A dense scallop bed was surveyed in 2002, with a QTC VIEW Series IV acoustic ground-discrimination system (AGDS) connected to a 38 kHz, 7° split-beam SIMRAD EK60 scientific echosounder. In 2003, a 50 kHz, 42° single-beam SUZUKI ES-2025 echosounder was connected to a QTC VIEW Series V AGDS. The QTC VIEW data were analysed with QTC IMPACT following the standard procedures and classified into acoustic classes. Several approaches were tested: unsupervised and supervised survey strategies directed to specific benthic communities. The SIMRAD EK60 seabed volume-backscattering strength (Sv) was submitted to a principal component analysis (PCA), before and after removal of a depth trend, and the scores on the first 10 principal components were classed by a K-means cluster analysis. The same seabed Sv data were submitted to stepwise discriminant analysis whose training data sets were defined with the ground-truth photographs using different groupings: biotope types, community types, and finally scallop-density classes. All the QTC AGDS approaches failed to reveal the scallop bed, community structures, or biotopes. The QTC classifications mimicked the bathymetry with a strong correlation of the acoustic classes with depth. The seabed Sv PCA + K-means approach presented similar depth-dependence, but, the PCA + K-means on the Sv residuals revealed the scallop bed. The discriminant analysis was the best solution for the scallop density with a general classification success rate of 75% and up to 91% for the highest density class. The Sv signature of the scallop bed is presented, and the most discriminant part of the acoustic signal is identified.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations38
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207