Acoustical measurement, processing, reporting and terminology standards for underwater risk assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropogenic underwater sounds represent a potential risk to aquatic organisms. Many regulators require this risk to be assessed before allowing a sound-producing activity to proceed. Regulators typically set exposure criteria for a range of acoustic parameters and require the assessment to address whether a given acoustic metric would exceed a specified allowable threshold. While the value of the threshold is usually clear, the procedure required to calculate the metric sometimes lacks sufficient detail, leading to uncertainties and potential inconsistencies in interpretation. Procedures are described that enable intra- and inter-project consistency in use, processing, and reporting of metrics. Quantities derived from sound pressure and sound particle motion are considered, providing metrics relevant to assessments for fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic mammals. Specific metrics for which procedures are described include transient duration, zero-to-peak quantities, mean-square and time-integrated-squared quantities (e.g., sound exposure), and their spectral densities. The metrics are relevant to ambient sound and to specified activities such as drilling, pile-driving, seismic imaging, or dynamic positioning. Issues addressed include the specification of fractional octave and fractional decade bands, and the harmonization of units and reference values used for reporting. Continuing efforts on standards for the characterization of underwater sound sources are described.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".