MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367309860 · doi:10.3390/acoustics5020026

Implication of Altered Acoustic Active Space for Cetacean Species That Result from Soundscape Changes and Noise Additions

2023· article· en· W4367309860 on OpenAlexaff
Rianna E. Burnham, David A. Duffus

Bibliographic record

VenueAcoustics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoundscapeSpace (punctuation)HabitatEcologyMetric (unit)PredationNoise (video)Focus (optics)Abundance (ecology)Computer scienceBiologySound (geography)AcousticsArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organisms use multi-modal, scale-dependent, sensory information to decipher their surroundings. This can include, for example, recognizing the presence of con- or heterospecifics, including a predatory threat, the presence and abundance of prey, or navigational cues to travel between breeding or feeding areas. Here we advocate for the use of the concept of active space to understand the extent to which an individual might be sending and receiving habitat information, describing this as the active component of their niche space. We present the use of active space as a means to understand ecological interactions, giving focus to those species whose active space is acoustically defined, in particular, cetacean species. We show how the application of estimates of active space, and changes in extent, can help better understand the potential disturbance effects of changes in the soundscape, and be a useful metric to estimate possible adverse effects even when stress responses, or behavioral or calling modifications are not obvious.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcousticsSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207