MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4395557074 · doi:10.15468/3f4qz2

Deep Panuke whale Acoustic 2003

2021· dataset· en· W4395557074 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marielle Thillet

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhaleOceanographyFisheryAcousticsEnvironmental scienceGeologyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Original provider: Encana Corporation Dataset credits: Marielle Thillet, Deep Panuke Project, Encana Corporation Abstract: We present marine mammal observation statistics, high-frequency seismic source characteristics, and example denoising of marine mammal acoustical recordings using data collected during the mitigation and monitoring program for a 3-D seismic survey by Encana Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in the northwest Atlantic during 2003. Marine mammals were observed both visually and acoustically. No marine mammal incidents or adverse reactions were observed during the survey. Acoustical observations were made by the Seamap Passive Acoustic Cetacean Monitoring System (SPACMS), consisting of two hydrophones placed 50 m apart, towed ahead of and to one side of the seismic source. Visual and acoustical detections were uncorrelated, indicating the complementary nature of the two observational techniques. Visual detections were more common per hour of effort than acoustical detections. Acoustical detection rates showed no significant day–night difference. Marine mammals appeared to have avoided very close ranges (100 m) from the seismic array during seismic acquisition, but the overall number of marine mammals in the observable radius (1–2 km) did not change significantly when the seismic source was “on” compared to “off.” Marine mammals were observed in larger groups and appeared to have become less vocal when the seismic source was active. It should be noted however, that the results from this data gathering effort may be affected by potential sources of bias (such as the combination of data from toothed and baleen whales). Signal processing of seismic source signatures indicated some high-frequency energy content consistent with expectations from earlier work. This analysis confirmed that most of the seismic energy was concentrated at lower frequencies (500 Hz). No low-frequency comparisons with near-field data could be made due to the geometry of the SPACMS recording hydrophones and seismic source, which resulted in the Lloyd’s mirror effect obliterating low-frequency components in the SPACMS records. A wavelet-based denoising method was applied to improve the visibility of marine mammal vocalizations on a spectrogram display.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.017

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→