MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2238257293 · doi:10.1186/s40317-015-0093-0

Pressure sensor calibrations of acoustic telemetry transmitters

2016· article· en· W2238257293 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maxime Veilleux, Nicolas W. R. Lapointe, Dale M. Webber, Tom R. Binder, Paul J. Blanchfield, Liset Cruz‐Font, Mathew G. Wells, Martin H. Larsen, Susan E. Doka, Steven J. Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Biotelemetry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalVemco (Canada)University of TorontoFisheries and Oceans CanadaCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsCalibrationTelemetryEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingPressure sensorRange (aeronautics)Hydrostatic pressureFactory (object-oriented programming)Atmospheric pressurePressure measurementBayAcousticsStatisticsMeteorologyComputer scienceGeologyMathematicsPhysicsMaterials scienceTelecommunicationsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic transmitters are widely used to obtain information on the spatial ecology of fish and other aquatic animals. Some transmitters contain pressure sensors to estimate depth, which are factory-calibrated before being sold and have a specified range of error. Our goal was to assess the accuracy of these pressure sensors and the factory calibrations to assess whether researchers should conduct additional calibrations prior to use in the field. To evaluate error, we conducted calibrations on ten acoustic transmitters with pressure sensors (obtained from Vemco-Amirix Ltd.) both in the laboratory (pressure chambers at Hammond Bay Biological Station and Carleton University) and in the field (based on lowering tags to known depths in Toronto Harbour and Experimental Lakes Area). Slopes, intercepts, and R 2 values of researcher-calibrated sensors were compared to the factory-calibrated values to contrast calibration methods and identify directional biases. To estimate the effects of temperature on sensor performance, we calibrated the same sensors at varying temperatures and compared slopes, intercepts, and R2 values. Finally, we evaluated external effects (i.e., water temperature, salinity, and atmospheric pressure) on sensor output through simple modeling exercises to better understand potential sources of error. A significant difference was found among the slopes and R 2 values of the four calibration events, whereas no difference was found among the intercepts. There was also a significant effect of calibration water temperature on slopes, intercepts, and R 2 values. External effects should be taken into consideration when interpreting biological data as they have an effect on hydrostatic pressure thereby affecting the reported depths (1.77 m shallower to 6.47 m deeper than standard conditions). Nonetheless, we did not find sufficient evidence to support the need for additional calibrations beyond those provided by the manufacturer as they did not markedly increase the accuracy of depth estimates.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal BiotelemetrySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207