MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136402915 · doi:10.1890/130283

Making connections in aquatic ecosystems with acoustic telemetry monitoring

2014· review· en· W2136402915 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of WindsorUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemetryBiotelemetryAquatic ecosystemEnvironmental resource managementAquatic scienceCoral reefEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingComputer scienceEcologyGeographyTelecommunicationsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous acoustic telemetry monitoring systems have been deployed in aquatic ecosystems around the globe – from under ice sheets in the Arctic to coral reefs in Australia – to track animals. With tens of thousands of tagged aquatic animals from a range of taxa, vast amounts of data have been generated. As data accumulate, it is useful to reflect on how this information has advanced our understanding of aquatic animals and improved management and conservation. Here we identify knowledge gaps and discuss opportunities to advance aquatic animal science and management using acoustic telemetry monitoring. Current technological and analytical shortfalls still need to be addressed to fully realize the potential of acoustic monitoring. Future interdisciplinary research that relies on transmitter‐borne sensors and emphasizes hypothesis testing will amplify the benefits of this technology.

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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