Fish sound production in freshwater habitats of New England: Widespread occurrence of air movements sounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a roving survey of five major river systems and adjacent, creek, lake, and pond habitats located within the northeastern United States. Fish sounds were recorded in 49% of 175 locations. Air movement sounds, including fast repetitive tick (FRT), occurred at 41% of the locations. Sluggish creeks had the highest occurrence of fish sounds (71%). Although highly variable, creeks and brooks had the lowest noise levels and rivers the highest. Fish sounds were more frequent in low noise habitats than high noise habitats, but the effect of masking on detection is not clear. Within main-stem river habitats, fish sound diversity tended to increase along a gradient from high elevation to the sea. Follow-up studies validated air movement sounds produced by alewife, white sucker, and brook, brown and rainbow trout through direct observation or in observations where only single species were present. Sounds produced by all five species are of the “air movement” type which is poorly understood but occurs widely in freshwater habitats. Although air movement sounds are likely incidental to physiological processes, they appear to be uniquely identifiable to species and, hence, hold promise for passive acoustic studies of freshwater soundscapes and fish behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".