A Method for Abnormal Behavior Recognition in Aquaculture Fields Using Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fish industry is an important source of income for island countries. Fish is a main source of animal-based protein. Marine fishing is gradually being replaced by marine farming (or aquaculture) due to declining wild fish populations and water pollution. However, fish farming is costly job with high requirements for labor, electricity, water, and feed. The use of deep learning to perform intelligent surveillance in aquaculture fields, reducing the need for human resources and implementing real-time monitoring, has been proposed. In this article, we propose a novel deep residual network (ResNeXt$3 \times 1 \mathrm{D}$) for abnormal behavior recognition in aquaculture fields. The proposed ResNeXt$3 \times 1 D$convolutional network is mainly based on an$R(2+1) D$convolutional network and modified to obtain better performance. Experimental results showed that the proposed ResNeXt$3 \times 1 D$exhibited good performance for abnormal behavior recognition in aquaculture fields. Specifically, the accuracy obtained using the proposed ResNeXt$3 \times 1 \mathrm{D}$for abnormal behavior recognition in aquaculture fields was approximately$95.3 \%$.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".