Experimentally Determining Optimal Conditions for Mapping Forage Fish with RPAS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RPAS (Remotely piloted aircraft systems, i.e., drones) present an efficient method for mapping schooling coastal forage fish species that have limited distribution and abundance data. However, RPAS imagery acquisition in marine environments is highly dependent on suitable environmental conditions. Additionally, the size, color and depth of forage fish schools will impact their detectability in RPAS imagery. In this study, we identified optimal and suboptimal coastal environmental conditions through a controlled experiment using a model fish school containing four forage fish-like fishing lures. The school was placed at 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 1.5 m, and 2.0 m depths in a wide range of coastal conditions and then we captured RPAS video imagery. The results from a cluster analysis, principal components, and correlation analysis of RPAS data found that the optimal conditions consisted of moderate sun altitudes (20–40°), glassy seas, low winds (<5 km/h), clear skies (<10% cloud cover), and low turbidity. The environmental conditions identified in this study will provide researchers using RPAS with the best criteria for detecting coastal forage fish schools.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it