MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3170659071 · doi:10.1121/10.0004452

Deriving an acoustic-based abundance estimate for porpoise species in Pacific Canadian waters

2021· article· en· W3170659071 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Ferguson, Thomas Doniol‐Valcroze, Linda M. Nichol

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorpoisePhocoenaAbundance (ecology)OceanographyBioacousticsEnvironmental scienceMarine mammalNoise (video)TowingHydrophoneHuman echolocationFisheryAcousticsGeologyHarbourBiologyComputer scienceMarine engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pacific Region International Survey of Marine Megafauna was conducted in the summer of 2018 to determine the distribution and abundance of cetaceans within the coastal and offshore waters of Canada. Tom Norris led the passive acoustic monitoring operations for this survey, and his Bio-Waves team of bioacousticians conducted 24-hour linear towed hydrophone array monitoring. Ocean Science Analytics worked in partnership with Bio-Waves, Inc. to conduct a post-processing analysis of this dataset and obtain an acoustic-based abundance estimate of porpoises by localizing individual click trains. Data were first re-processed in PAMGuard to reduce confounding noise and improve click classification. High-pass filters were used to reduce noise, and narrow-band, high-frequency (NBHF) echolocation clicks were up-sampled to improve the time delay measurement. The average peak frequency of clicks was used to determine their likely categorization as Dall’s (Phocoenoides dalli) or harbour (Phocoena phocoena) porpoise. Of the 90 NBHF clicks trains detected, 78 were categorized as Dall’s porpoise, and 56 yielded localizations. The resulting acoustic-based Dall’s porpoise abundance estimate (3967, CV 29%) was considerably lower than the visual-based estimate (27 002, CV 23%). We discuss possible reasons for this discrepancy and new insights into porpoise occurrence and distribution within the study area.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→