MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401599528 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2024-0087

Paired comparisons with quiet surface drones show evidence of fish behavioral response to motorized vessels during acoustic surveys in Lake Superior

2024· article· en· W4401599528 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas M. Evans, Lars G. Rudstam, Suresh A. Sethi, Daniel L. Yule, David M. Warner, Steven A. Farha, Andrew Barnard, Mark R. DuFour, Timothy P. O’Brien, Kayden C. Nasworthy, Ian C. Harding, Bradley A. Ray, Edmund J. Isaac, Joshua E. Blankenheim, Hannah Blair, James M. Watkins, Steven Senczyszyn, James J. Roberts, Peter C. Esselman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsQUIETFish <Actinopterygii>DroneFisheryBiologyEnvironmental sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic surveys are important for fish stock assessments, but fish responses to survey vessels can bias acoustic estimates. We leveraged quiet uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) to characterize potential bias in acoustic surveys. Five conventional motorized ships overtook USVs from astern over 2 km transects at night in Lake Superior in 2022. We examined the difference in acoustic backscatter, average target depth, and average target strength (TS) between USV and motorized vessels. Although sound level measurements from the motorized vessels sometimes exceeded recommendations for scientific vessels, we did not detect differences in acoustic measures among survey vessels. However, the USVs recorded 2 dB higher acoustic backscatter and TS than motorized vessels, leading to ∼15% higher fish densities with drones when using in situ TS and echo integration. Differences in fish density would increase to 30%–60% if a standard TS value was applied. Target depth did not differ between USVs and motorized ships. These results are consistent with a change in orientation but not depth of insonified fish and limited horizontal avoidance of motorized survey vessels.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→