Field tests of small autonomous recording units: an evaluation of in-person versus automated point counts and a comparison of recording quality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of small autonomous recorders makes it easier than ever to sample terrestrial acoustic animals and soundscapes. I conducted a comparison of four small recorders to evaluate their performance in a field setting: Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter Mini; Wildlife Acoustics Song Meter Micro; Open Acoustics Audiomoth; and Cornell SwiftOne. I address two questions: (1) How do in-person point counts compare to recorder-based point counts using these small autonomous recorders? (2) How does the quality of the recordings compare across these small autonomous recorders? To evaluate the performance of the recorders in point counts, I conducted in-person and recording-based point counts at ten locations. Each of the recorders performed similarly well at point counts, producing comparable estimates of species richness, although all of the autonomous recorders under-estimated species richness. To evaluate recording quality, I conducted a sound transmission test, broadcasting and re-recording sounds. Recorders varied in their frequency response above 12 kHz, but showed only subtle differences in the frequency response at frequencies below 12 kHz. I conclude that each of these types of small recorders provide bioacousticians with useful tools for conducting point counts, and for passive monitoring of animal sounds, with only subtle differences across the investigated models.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it