MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526469080 · doi:10.15439/2016f546

Identifying Fishing Activities from AIS Data with Conditional Random Fields

2016· article· en· W2526469080 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Computer Science and Information Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Centre
KeywordsFishingConditional random fieldComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fishing activity detection is important for fishery management to maintain abundant oceans. This paper presents a novel approach to identifying fishing activities from Automatic Identification System (AIS) data using Conditional Random Fields (CRFs). CRFs are popular for solving structured prediction problems such as sequence labeling in natural language processing. To model the conditional probability distributions that can identify fishing activities of the vessel points, we treat attributes of vessel points as observed variables and the fishing and non-fishing labels as hidden variables. We present three experiments and two comparisons to demonstrate the stability and effectiveness of the resulting models.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.008
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.226 · 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