MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386459842 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.14191

Positioning aquatic animals with acoustic transmitters

2023· article· en· W4386459842 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Lennox, Kim Aarestrup, Josep Alós, Robert Arlinghaus, Eneko Aspillaga, Michael G. Bertram, Kim Birnie‐Gauvin, Tomas Brodin, Steven J. Cooke, Lotte S. Dahlmo, Félicie Dhellemmes, Karl Øystein Gjelland, Gustav Hellström, Henry Hershey, Christopher M. Holbrook, Thomas Klefoth, Susan Lowerre‐Barbieri, Christopher T. Monk, Cecilie I. Nilsen, Ine Pauwels, Renanel Pickholtz, Marie Prchalová, Jan Reubens, Milan Říha, David Villegas‐Ríos, Knut Wiik Vollset, Samuel Westrelin, Henrik Baktoft

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOcean Tracking NetworkDalhousie University
FundersVlaamse regeringNorges ForskningsrådPoul Due Jensens FondFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceFisheryBiologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Geolocating aquatic animals with acoustic tags has been ongoing for decades, relying on the detection of acoustic signals at multiple receivers with known positions to calculate a 2D or 3D position, and ultimately recreate the path of an aquatic animal from detections at fixed stations. This method of underwater geolocation is evolving with new software and hardware options available to help investigators design studies and calculate positions using solvers based predominantly on time‐difference‐of‐arrival and time‐of‐arrival. We provide an overview of the considerations necessary to implement positioning in aquatic acoustic telemetry studies, including how to design arrays of receivers, test performance, synchronize receiver clocks and calculate positions from the detection data. We additionally present some common positioning algorithms, including both the free open‐source solvers and the ‘black‐box’ methods provided by some manufacturers for calculating positions. This paper is the first to provide a comprehensive overview of methods and considerations for designing and implementing better positioning studies that will support users, and encourage further knowledge advances in aquatic systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations41
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207