MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403518209 · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2024.102456

Reducing bias in Coregonus artedi abundance estimates using stationary up-looking acoustics

2024· article· en· W4403518209 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ryan C. Grow, Eric K. Berglund, Friedrich Fischer, Michael D. Rennie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Great Lakes Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsInternational Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)CoregonusAcousticsEnvironmental scienceFisheryOceanographyStatisticsGeologyMathematicsBiologyPhysicsFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile hydroacoustic surveys using ship-based down-looking transducers are widely used to estimate densities for ecologically and economically important pelagic fishes. However, this method likely underestimates densities of some surface-oriented species due to biases associated with the acoustic surface exclusion zone and ship avoidance behaviours. We compared cisco ( Coregonus artedi ) density estimates from a stationary up-looking platform survey to a standard down-looking acoustic survey. Both systems were deployed during the fall cisco spawn in Thunder Bay, Lake Superior 2020–2022. Cisco density estimates from the stationary up-looking platform were on average 6.7 times higher in the upper water column (∼1–10 m) and 2 times higher over the entire water column (∼1–45 m) than those from standard mobile surveys. Ship avoidance behaviour associated with mobile surveys was apparent in the upper water column; median cisco densities observed by the platform fell from ∼36 to ∼9 fish/ha when the ship passed near the platform. Abundance estimates from the platform when not influenced by ship avoidance provided higher quota estimates than the standard survey in 2020 and 2022, but were similar in 2021. A multi-day deployment of the platform tracked a progressive daily increase in fish densities, highlighting the sensitivity of mobile survey results to the day they are conducted, often dictated by environmental conditions. Our results show promise in applying stationary acoustic deployments in fisheries surveys, with improved accuracy and reduced effort compared to mobile acoustic surveys in the management and monitoring of pelagic fishes in the Great Lakes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Great Lakes Research→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→