MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508043170 · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2016.08.001

The combined use of visual and acoustic data collection techniques for winter killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) observations

2016· article· en· W2508043170 on OpenAlexafffundabout
R.E. Burham, Rod S. Palm, D.A. Duffus, Xavier Mouy, Amalis Riera

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Conservation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersMarine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network
KeywordsWhaleCoveSound (geography)HabitatGeographyData collectionFisheryOceanographyEcologyArchaeologyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observations of cetaceans during the winter are difficult, if not impossible in some locations, yet their presence, habitat use, and behaviour during this period are important for conservation and management. Typically, observations come from vessel surveys, with citizen science networks increasingly adding significant sighting data. In compliment to this, acoustic data collection systems can be deployed to collect information remotely over long periods, and in almost any conditions. Here we describe how the combination of these data collection techniques works to fill knowledge gaps, with data from a well-established citizen science network, and a single passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) recorder integrated to identify killer whale presence during winter months in Clayoquot Sound, on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Together these data show the overwinter use of Clayoquot Sound by killer whales is greater than previously thought. During the study period, February 21 to April 25, 2015, the citizen science network noted 14 visual encounters ranging from Amphitrite Point to Hot Spring Cove, Vancouver Island. The PAM recorded 17 acoustic encounters within the 10 km detection radius of the recorder, deployed off Siwash Point, Flores Island. This included 15 encounters not recorded by the visual network. Both resident and Bigg’s (transient) transient whale groups were recorded, although analysis of vocalizations determined that the majority of the encounters recorded acoustically were of northern resident killer whales. This may be a function of life history, with Bigg’s killer whales typically noted to be less acoustically active, or could represent greater site use by this group. This first use of acoustic monitoring over the winter, complemented with visual data, can establish a better understanding of year-round use of this area by killer whales and has broader application to other sites.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and ConservationSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207