Acoustic accelerometer transmitters and their growing relevance to aquatic science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has recently been great interest in the use of accelerometers onboard electronic transmitters to characterise various aspects of the ecology of wild animals. We review use cases and outline how these tools can provide opportunities for studying activity and survival, exercise physiology of wild animals, the response to stressors, energy landscapes and conservation planning tools, and the means with which to identify behaviours remotely from transmitted data. Accelerometer transmitters typically send data summaries to receivers at fixed intervals after filtering out static acceleration and calculating root-mean square error or overall dynamic body action of 2- or 3-axis acceleration values (often at 5-12.5 Hz) from dynamic acceleration onboard the tag. Despite the popularity of these transmitters among aquatic ecologists, we note that there is wide variation in the sampling frequencies and windows used among studies that will potentially affect the ability to make comparisons in the future. Accelerometer transmitters will likely become increasingly popular tools for studying finer scale details about cryptic species that are difficult to recapture and hence not suitable for studies using data loggers. We anticipate that there will continue to be opportunities to adopt methods used for analysing data from loggers to datasets generated from acceleration transmitters, to generate new knowledge about the ecology of aquatic animals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".