MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Make the CPUs do the hard work - Automated acoustic feature extraction and visualization for marine ecoacoustics applications illustrated using marine mammal Passive Acoustic Monitoring datasets

2022· preprint· en· W4293037412 on OpenAlexafffund
Simone Cominelli, Nicolò Bellin, Carissa D. Brown, Valeria Rossi, Jack Lawson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersUniversità degli Studi di FerraraTD BankMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversità degli Studi di ParmaFisheries and Oceans CanadaMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaDipartimenti di Eccellenza
KeywordsMarine mammalBioacousticsComputer scienceVisualizationUnderwaterRandom forestFeature extractionDimensionality reductionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)EcologyGeologyOceanographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Passive Acoustic Monitoring is emerging as a solution for monitoring species and environmental change over large spatial and temporal scales. However, drawing rigorous conclusions based on acoustic recordings is challenging, as there is no consensus over which approaches and indices are best suited for characterizing marine acoustic environments. 2. We present an alternative to the use of ecoacoustic indices and describe the application of multiple machine learning techniques to the analysis of a large PAM dataset. We combine pre-trained acoustic classification models, dimensionality reduction, and random forest algorithms to demonstrate how machine-learned acoustic features capture different aspects of the marine environment. We processed two PAM databases and conducted 13 trials showing how acoustic features can be used to: i) discriminate between the vocalizations of marine mammals, beginning with high-level taxonomic groups, and extending to detecting differences between conspecifics belonging to distinct populations; ii) discriminating amongst different marine environments; and iii) detecting and monitoring anthropogenic and biological sound sources. 3. Acoustic features and their UMAP projections exhibited good performance in the classification of marine mammal vocalizations. Most of the taxonomic levels investigated here could be classified using the UMAP projections, apart from species that were underrepresented. Both anthropogenic (ships and airguns) and biological (humpback whales) sound sources could also be identified in field recordings. 4. We argue that acoustic feature extraction, visualization, and analysis allows the retention of most of the environmental information contained in PAM recordings, overcoming the limitations encountered when using ecoacoustics indices. Acoustic features are universal, permitting comparisons of results collected from multiple environments. Our approach can be used to simultaneously investigate the macro and micro characteristics of marine soundscapes, with a more objective method and with far less human effort.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.049

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→