MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the efficiency of a source-level model to predict hydrophone-based received noise levels of the St. Lawrence Estuary’s merchant fleet

2024· article· en· W4399857055 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dominic Lagrois, Cristiane C. A. Martins, Jean-François Senécal, Samuel Turgeon, Clément Chion

Bibliographic record

VenueOcean Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaParks Canada
KeywordsEstuaryHydrophoneNoise (video)Environmental scienceOceanographyAcousticsMarine engineeringGeologyEngineeringComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) source-level model was statistically derived using nearly 10,000 vessel transits along Canada’s western coast. Before using this model in other areas, it is important to examine its efficiency in new environments and on other fleets. In this work, hydrophone-based acoustic recordings collected between August 3rd and September 16th of 2022 within the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park were used to investigate the applicability of the ECHO source-level model to Canada’s eastern fleet. Opportunistic transits of 71 merchant ships near (i.e., ≲ 3 km ) the hydrophone were obtained. As an attempt to reduce computing times in the context of agent-based modeling, the reliability of the proposed analytic seabed critical angle (SCA) method for propagation losses calculations was examined and compared to robust, although time-consuming, numerical methods . Results generally show that the combination of the ECHO source-level model and our best estimates for propagation losses calculations does allow to reliably predict the acoustic footprint of the radiated noise levels by merchant ships in the acoustic module of the Marine Mammal and Maritime Traffic Simulator (3MTSim). However, computational gains could be marginal at best due to the analytic SCA method quickly becoming inconsistent with the numerical approach in range-dependent scenarios that often translate into long-range encounters.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcean EngineeringSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207