MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3214674213 · doi:10.1121/10.0007063

Estimating minke whale relative abundance in the North Atlantic using passive acoustic sensors

2021· article· en· W3214674213 on OpenAlexafffund
Shahideh Kiehbadroudinezhad, Bruce Martin, Joanna Mills Flemming

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsMinke whaleAbundance (ecology)Relative species abundanceMarine mammalOceanographyEnvironmental scienceFisheryBalaenopteraSubmarine pipelinePopulationWhaleGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimates of abundance and their changes through time are key elements of marine mammal conservation and management. Absolute marine mammal abundance in a region of the open ocean is often difficult to attain. However, methods of estimating their abundance based on passive acoustic recordings are becoming increasingly employed. This study shows that passive acoustic monitoring of North Atlantic minke whales with a single hydrophone provides sufficient information to estimate relative population abundance. An automated detector was developed for minke whale pulse trains and an approach for converting its output into a relative abundance index is proposed by accounting for detectability as well as false positives and negatives. To demonstrate this technique, a 2 y dataset from the seven sites of the Atlantic Deepwater Ecosystem Observatory Network project on the U.S. east coast was analyzed. Resulting relative abundance indices confirm pulse train-calling minke whale presence in the deep waters of the outer continental shelf. The minkes are present December through April annually with the highest abundance near the site offshore of Savannah, Georgia.

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)0.001
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations3
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→