MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161252226 · doi:10.1139/f07-134

Comparison of in situ, ex situ, and backscatter model estimates of Pacific hake (<i>Merluccius productus</i>) target strength

2007· article· en· W2161252226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark J. Henderson, John K. Horne

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMerlucciusHakeTarget strengthIn situFish <Actinopterygii>OceanographyBackscatter (email)FisheryEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeographyGeologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To convert acoustic energy into estimates of fish density, the target strength (TS) of a representative fish must be known. TS is a measure of the acoustic reflectivity of a fish, which is variable depending on the presence of a swimbladder, the size of the fish, its behavior, morphology, and physiology. The most common method used to estimate the TS of a fish is a TS-to-length empirical regression, with TS values increasing with fish length. This study uses in situ and ex situ TS measurements and a backscatter model to develop TS-to-length conversions for Pacific hake (Merluccius productus). Results from in situ and ex situ measurements had regression intercepts 4–6 dB lower than the previous Pacific hake TS-to-length regression. These differences suggest that an individual hake reflects 2.5–4 times less acoustic energy than was previously estimated.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.268
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

Citations35
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207