MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965145177

High-frequency acoustics of marine vegetation – Role of frequencies and imaging angles

2019· article· en· W2965145177 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philippe Blondel, Aleksandra Kruss, Jarosław Tęgowski, Jennifer Wladichuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePure (University of Bath) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEarthwatch Institute
KeywordsAcousticsVegetation (pathology)Underwater acousticsGeologyOptoacoustic imagingRemote sensingPhysicsOceanographyUnderwaterMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine vegetation is extremely varied and an essential component of shallow-water habitats. This paper will present two independent strands of work, using a variety of high-frequency acoustic sources to image macrophytes for different purposes. The first series of studies focuses on gas-filled kelp Nereocystis luetkeana, a seaweed ranging along the west coast of North America from California to Alaska, and is an important component of its diverse coastal ecosystems. As part of an investigation into grey whale habitats, we have measured propagation and attenuation through kelp beds of different densities, using broadband (1-20 kHz) white noise (Wladichuk, 2010, and other works). These field measurements in British Columbia (Canada) were compared with Monte Carlo simulations of sound propagation through kelp beds of increasing densities. The second series of measurements (started in Kruss et al., 2007 and continued through to Kruss et al., 2017) looked at gas-free macrophytes in shallow polar habitats; namely Saccharina latissima (L.) and Laminaria digitata (Huds.) in Svalbard fjords. These were mapped with traditional single-beam echo-sounders (such as the Biosonics DTX, 420 kHz) and with multibeam echosounders (such as the Imagenex 837 Delta-T, 260 kHz), investigating the ranges of angles at which macrophytes could be reliably mapped and what signal processing approaches were the most adapted. These two types of work are combined to show how they can be interpreted in the light of the seminal work done by Jean-Pierre Hermand on seagrass acoustics, for example Hermand et al. (2000) and Hermand (2004), and how his scientific legacy influences future efforts in acoustic mapping of marine vegetation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.139
Teacher spread0.136 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure (University of Bath)Same topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207