Seafloor morphology and substrate mapping in the Gulf of St Lawrence, Canada, using machine learning approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed maps of seafloor substrata and morphology can act as valuable proxies for predicting and understanding the distributions of benthic communities and are important for guiding conservation initiatives. High resolution acoustic remote sensing data can facilitate the production of detailed seafloor maps, but are cost-prohibitive to collect and not widely available. In the absence of targeted high resolution data, global bathymetric data of a lower resolution, combined with legacy seafloor sampling data, can provide an alternative for generating maps of seafloor substrate and morphology. Here we apply regression random forest to legacy data in the Gulf of St Lawrence, Canada, to generate a map of seabed sediment distribution. We further apply k-means clustering to a principal component analysis output to identify seafloor morphology classes from the GEBCO bathymetric grid. The morphology classification identified most morphological features but could not discriminate valleys and canyons. The random forest results were in line with previous sediment mapping work done in the area, but a large proportion of zero values skewed the explained variance. In both models, improvements may be possible with the introduction of more predictor variables. These models prove useful for generating regional seafloor maps that may be used for future management and conservation applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".