The Ups and Downs of Using Active Acoustic Technologies to Study Fish at Tidal Energy Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active acoustic instruments (echosounders) are well-suited for collecting high-resolution information on fish abundance and distribution in the areas targeted for tidal energy development, which is necessary for understanding the potential risks tidal energy devices pose to fish. However, a large proportion of echosounder data must often be omitted due to high levels of backscatter from air entrained into the water column. To effectively use these instruments at tidal energy sites, we need a better understanding of this data loss and how it may affect estimates of fish abundance and vertical distribution. We examined entrained air contamination in echosounder data from the Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) tidal energy test site in Minas Passage, Nova Scotia, where current speeds can exceed 5 m·s -1 . Entrained air depth was highly variable and increased with current speed, and contamination was lowest during neap tides. The lower 70% of the water column and current speeds <3 m·s -1 were generally well-represented in the dataset. However, under-sampling of the upper water column and faster speeds strongly affected simulated fish abundance estimates, with error highly dependent on the underlying vertical distribution of fish. Complementary sensing technologies, such as acoustic telemetry and optical instruments, could be used concurrently with echosounders to fill gaps in active acoustic datasets and to maximize what can be learned about fish abundance and distribution at tidal energy sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".