MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971359098 · doi:10.1002/aqc.3103

Automated detection and tracking of marine mammals: A novel sonar tool for monitoring effects of marine industry

2019· article· en· W2971359098 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon D. Hastie, Gi‐Mick Wu, Simon Moss, Pauline Jepp, Jamie Macaulay, Arthur Lee, Carol Sparling, Clair Evers, Douglas Gillespie

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKScottish GovernmentDepartment of Energy and Climate Change
KeywordsMarine mammalSonarSupport vector machineMarine engineeringHarbor sealComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Fur sealMarine debrisArtificial intelligenceEngineeringGeologyOceanographyFisheryPhocaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many marine industries may pose acute risks to marine wildlife. For example, tidal turbines have the potential to injure or kill marine mammals through collisions with turbine blades. However, the quantification of collision risk is currently limited by a lack of suitable technologies to collect long‐term data on marine mammal behaviour around tidal turbines. Sonar provides a potential means of tracking marine mammals around tidal turbines. However, its effectiveness for long‐term data collection is hindered by the large data volumes and the need for manual validation of detections. Therefore, the aim here was to develop and test automated classification algorithms for marine mammals in sonar data. Data on the movements of harbour seals were collected in a tidally energetic environment using a high‐frequency multibeam sonar on a custom designed seabed‐mounted platform. The study area was monitored by observers to provide visual validation of seals and other targets detected by the sonar. Sixty‐five confirmed seals and 96 other targets were detected by the sonar. Movement and shape parameters associated with each target were extracted and used to develop a series of classification algorithms. Kernel support vector machines were used to classify targets (seal vs. nonseal) and cross‐validation analyses were carried out to quantify classifier efficiency. The best‐fit kernel support vector machine correctly classified all the confirmed seals but misclassified a small percentage of non‐seal targets (~8%) as seals. Shape and non‐spectral movement parameters were considered to be the most important in achieving successful classification. Results indicate that sonar is an effective method for detecting and tracking seals in tidal environments, and the automated classification approach developed here provides a key tool that could be applied to collecting long‐term behavioural data around anthropogenic activities such as tidal turbines.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207