MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199833798 · doi:10.3390/jmse9101047

Variability in Anthropogenic Underwater Noise Due to Bathymetry and Sound Speed Characteristics

2021· article· en· W3199833798 on OpenAlexaffabout
Svein Vagle, Rianna E. Burnham, Caitlin O’Neill, Harald Yurk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Science and Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathymetryNoise (video)Water columnAmbient noise levelSound transmission classUnderwaterEnvironmental scienceOceanographySound (geography)Transmission lossGeologyUnderwater acousticsAcousticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oceanic acoustic environments are dynamic, shaped by the spatiotemporal variability in transmission losses and sound propagation pathways of natural and human-derived noise sources. Here we used recordings of an experimental noise source combined with transmission loss modeling to investigate changes in the received levels of vessel noise over space and time as a result of natural water column variability. Recordings were made in the Juan de Fuca Strait, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, a biologically productive coastal region that hosts several cetacean species. Significant variability in noise levels was observed due to changing water masses, tied to seasonal temperature variation and, on a finer scale, tidal movements. Comparisons of interpreted received noise levels through the water column indicated that vessel noise recorded by bottom-stationed monitoring devices might not accurately represent those received by whales in near-surface waters. Vertical and temporal differences of 3–5 dB were commonly observed in both the recorded and modeled data. This has implications in estimating the success of noise mitigation measures, and our understanding of the change in sound fields experienced by target species for conservation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marine Science and EngineeringSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207