MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189679040 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.3698

Narwhal (<i>Monodon monoceros</i>) detection by infrared flukeprints from aerial survey imagery

2021· article· en· W3189679040 on OpenAlexafffund
Katie R. N. Florko, Cody G. Carlyle, Brent G. Young, David J. Yurkowski, Christine Michel, Steven H. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaFisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsRemote sensingVisibilityAerial photographyWildlifeEnvironmental scienceAerial surveyInfraredGeologyGeographyEcologyBiologyMeteorologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Visual and observer aerial surveys are important for monitoring wildlife populations but are subject to visibility biases where animals may go undetected. The use of infrared technology in aerial surveys has the potential to reduce visibility biases, both when recording data and in the retrospective processing of the footage, and thus complements visible wavelength photography. We used infrared video during marine mammal surveys in the high‐Arctic and indirectly detected narwhal (Monodon monoceros) via their thermal flukeprints (i.e., thermo‐stratified water mixing from fluke strokes). This novel indicator persisted for a longer duration than when the animal was at the water's surface, which likely improved the probability of an animal being observed by increasing the duration of its detectability. Using infrared to complement aerial photographic surveys may assist in monitoring whales, especially in remote areas. Our results highlight how infrared technology may be used to develop automatic detection and remote‐monitoring methodology.

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)0.000
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207