Towards Estimating Probability of Fish–Turbine Encounter: Using Drifters Equipped with Acoustic Tags to Verify the Efficacy of an Array of Acoustic Receivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An area has been designated for demonstrating the utility of marine hydrokinetic turbines in Minas Passage, Bay of Fundy. Marine renewable energy may be useful for the transition from carbon-based energy sources, but there is concern for the safety of fish that might encounter turbines. Acoustic receivers that detect signals from acoustically tagged fish that pass through the tidal demonstration area and the detection efficiency of tag signals might be used to estimate the likelihood of fish encountering marine hydrokinetic turbines. The method requires that tagged fish passing through the development area will be reliably detected by a receiver array. The present research tests the reliability with which passing tags are detected by suspending tags beneath GPS-tracked drifters. Drifters carrying high residency Innovasea tags that transmitted every 2 s were usually detected by the receiver array even in fast currents during spring tides but pulse-position modulation tags were inadequate. Sometimes very few high residency tag signals were detected when fast tidal currents swept a drifter through the receiver array, so increasing the transmission interval degrades performance at the tidal energy development area. High residency tags suspended close to the sea surface were slightly less likely to be detected if they passed by during calm conditions. Previously measured detection efficiencies were found to slightly overestimate the chances of a high residency tag carried by a drifter being detected as it passed by a receiver. This works elucidates the effectiveness with which acoustically tagged fish are detected in fast, highly turbulent tidal currents and informs the application of detection efficiency measurements to calculate the probability that fish encounter a marine hydrokinetic turbine.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".