MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220905604 · doi:10.1007/s11001-022-09471-3

Multiple imputation of multibeam angular response data for high resolution full coverage seabed mapping

2022· article· en· W4220905604 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Misiuk, Craig J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Geophysical Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundOcean Frontier Institute
KeywordsBathymetrySonarSeabedGeologyRemote sensingImage resolutionEcho soundingImputation (statistics)Computer scienceAcousticsGeodesyStatisticsMissing dataMathematicsOceanographyPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Acoustic data collected by multibeam echosounders (MBES) are increasingly used for high resolution seabed mapping. The relationships between substrate properties and the acoustic response of the seafloor depends on the acoustic angle of incidence and the operating frequency of the sonar, and these dependencies can be analysed for discrimination of benthic substrates or habitats. An outstanding challenge for angular MBES mapping at a high spatial resolution is discontinuity; acoustic data are seldom represented at a full range of incidence angles across an entire survey area, hindering continuous spatial mapping. Given quantifiable relationships between MBES data at various incidence angles and frequencies, we propose to use multiple imputation to achieve complete estimates of angular MBES data over full survey extents at a high spatial resolution for seabed mapping. The primary goals of this study are (i) to evaluate the effectiveness of multiple imputation for producing accurate estimates of angular backscatter intensity and substrate penetration information, and (ii) to evaluate the usefulness of imputed angular data for benthic habitat and substrate mapping at a high spatial resolution. Using a multi-frequency case study, acoustic soundings were first aggregated to homogenous seabed units at a high spatial resolution via image segmentation. The effectiveness and limitations of imputation were explored in this context by simulating various amounts of missing angular data, and results suggested that a substantial proportion of missing measurements (> 40%) could be imputed with little error using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE). The usefulness of imputed angular data for seabed mapping was then evaluated empirically by using MICE to generate multiple stochastic versions of a dataset with missing angular measurements. The complete, imputed datasets were used to model the distribution of substrate properties observed from ground-truth samples using Random Forest and neural networks. Model results were pooled for continuous spatial prediction and estimates of confidence were derived to reflect uncertainty resulting from multiple imputations. In addition to enabling continuous spatial prediction, the high-resolution imputed angular models performed favourably compared to broader segmentations or non-angular data.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Geophysical ResearchSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207