Keeping it classy: classification of live fish and ghost PIT tags detected with a mobile PIT tag interrogation system using an innovative analytical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag data to improve demographic parameter estimates has led to the rapid advancement of PIT tag systems. However, ghost tags create uncertainty about detected tag status (i.e., live fish or ghost tag) when using mobile interrogation systems. We developed a method to differentiate between live fish and ghost tags using a random forest classification model with a novel data input structure based on known fate PIT tag detections in the San Juan River (New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, USA). We used our model to classify detected tags with an overall error rate of 6.8% (1.6% ghost tags error rate and 21.8% live fish error rate). The important variables for classification were related to distance moved and response to monsoonal flood flows; however, habitat variables did not appear to influence model accuracy. Our results and approach allow the use of mobile detection data with confidence and allow for greater accuracy in movement, distribution, and habitat use studies, potentially helping identify influential management actions that would improve our ability to conserve and recover endangered fish.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".