Acoustic detection of gunshots to improve measurement and mapping of hunting activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hunting can influence the abundance and distribution of animals and act as a source of conflict among recreational user groups. Thus, land managers benefit from tools that can generate information about when and where hunting occurs. We used passive acoustic monitoring to examine spatiotemporal patterns of hunting‐related gunshots at 91 locations in a protected area in Alberta, Canada. We compared 2 methods for detecting gunshots from recordings: a recognizer that used complex pattern recognition and an energy detector that detected loud sounds regardless of their acoustic features. The recognizer primarily detected faint sounds, and multiple observers showed low levels of agreement (37%) with respect to whether sounds were gunshots or not, suggesting it produced ambiguous data. The recognizer also missed many loud, clear gunshots for unknown reasons. The energy detector, in contrast, detected loud sounds upon which observers showed near‐unanimous agreement (99%) on their identity. Gunshots missed by the energy detector could be because they were too quiet (i.e., too far away to be detected). Thus, despite detecting fewer gunshots overall, the energy detector produced higher quality data that were easier to interpret. We analyzed 249 gunshots detected with the energy detector, and found that hunting was concentrated near vehicle access points and peaked on Saturdays, and that hunters largely abided by local regulations prohibiting Sunday hunting. We compared energy detector results with remote cameras, which revealed similar spatiotemporal patterns of hunting effort. Passive acoustic monitoring has the potential to allow hunting activity to be mapped and monitored with unprecedented resolution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".