Understanding Effects of Whale-Watching Vessel Noise on Humpback Whale Song in the North Pacific Coast of Colombia With Propagation Models of Masking and Acoustic Data Observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soundscapes with minimal anthropogenic noise sources are key for the survival and effective communication of marine mammals. The Gulf of Tribugá is part of the breeding ground for humpback whale Stock G. Currently, no large-scale infrastructure exists on the Gulf's coastline, making it an area with high biodiversity and little anthropogenic noise. Whale-watching is one of the few human activities that contributes to the soundscape. By Morro Mico, on the southern limit of the Utría Natural National Park, an Ecological Acoustic Recorder (EAR, Oceanwide Science Institute) was deployed in the Gulf to record samples of acoustic activity from October to November 2018. It recorded for 10-min intervals with 20-min lapses for a duty cycle of 33.3%. One of the common peak frequencies of humpback whale song units from these recordings was used as input to an acoustic propagation model using the parabolic equation to simulate the communication space of a humpback whale when zero, one, and two boats are present. GPS positions of theodolite data from various whale watching scenarios in the Gulf were used to inform the models. Model results indicate that humpback whale song communication space could be reduced by as much as 63% in the presence of even one whale-watching boat. The boats traveling through the Gulf are the same as those used in whale-watching, and their engine noise while passing Morro Mico coincided with song structural and temporal changes observed in the acoustic data. Combining in situ data with acoustic models can advance the understanding of the spatio-temporal acoustic reactions of whales when their vocalizations are masked by boat noise. This project serves as an approximation of how humpback whale Stock G may respond to whale-watching vessel noise in the Gulf of Tribugá.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".