A review of big data analysis methods for baleen whale passive acoustic monitoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many organizations collect large passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) data sets that need to be efficiently and reliably analyzed. To determine appropriate methods for effective analysis of big PAM data sets, we undertook a literature review of baleen whale PAM analysis methods. Methodologies from 166 studies (published between 2000–2019) were summarized, and a detailed review was performed on the 94 studies that recorded more than 1,000 hr of acoustic data (“big data”). Analysis techniques for extracting baleen whale information from PAM data sets varied depending on the research observed. A spectrum of methodologies was used and ranged from manual analysis of all acoustic data by human experts to completely automated techniques with no manual validation. Based on this assessment, recommendations are provided to encourage robust research methods that are comparable across studies and sectors, achievable across research groups, and consistent with previous work. These include using automated techniques when possible to increase efficiency and repeatability, supplementing automation with manual review to calculate automated detector performance, and increasing consistency in terminology and presentation of results. This work can be used to facilitate discussion for minimum standards and best practices to be implemented in the field of marine mammal PAM.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it