Identifying prey capture events of a free-ranging marine predator using bio-logger data and deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine predators are integral to the functioning of marine ecosystems, and their consumption requirements should be integrated into ecosystem-based management policies. However, estimating prey consumption in diving marine predators requires innovative methods as predator–prey interactions are rarely observable. We developed a novel method, validated by animal-borne video, that uses tri-axial acceleration and depth data to quantify prey capture rates in chinstrap penguins ( Pygoscelis antarctica ). These penguins are important consumers of Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba ), a commercially harvested crustacean central to the Southern Ocean food web. We collected a large data set ( n = 41 individuals) comprising overlapping video, accelerometer and depth data from foraging penguins. Prey captures were manually identified in videos, and those observations were used in supervised training of two deep learning neural networks (convolutional neural network (CNN) and V-Net). Although the CNN and V-Net architectures and input data pipelines differed, both trained models were able to predict prey captures from new acceleration and depth data (linear regression slope of predictions against video-observed prey captures = 1.13; R 2 ≈ 0.86). Our results illustrate that deep learning algorithms offer a means to process the large quantities of data generated by contemporary bio-logging sensors to robustly estimate prey capture events in diving marine predators.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".