MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412746573 · doi:10.1186/s40317-025-00419-z

Assessing acoustic receiver detection efficiency using autocorrelation adjusted machine learning models

2025· article· en· W4412746573 on OpenAlexafffund
James A. Crossman, Eduardo G. Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Biotelemetry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)University of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsBC Hydro
KeywordsAutocorrelationBiologyReceiver operating characteristicComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection efficiency is a key performance metric for acoustic telemetry arrays, providing an estimate of the probability of detecting a passing tagged organism. It is influenced by environmental (e.g., discharge), technological (e.g., transmitter power), and habitat (e.g., noise) factors, making predictions of detection efficiency a challenging task in the field of movement ecology. To predict detection efficiency, we applied regression-based machine learning models in two distinct river systems: a small mountainous and a large regulated river. The models incorporated daily discharge, water temperature and depth, substrate type, a receiver metadata metric indicative of noise, and the distance between receiver and acoustic tag. While both spatial and temporal autocorrelation were evaluated, only temporal autocorrelation required adjustment, which was addressed using a rolling cross-validation approach. Optimal cross-validation parameters differed between systems, with 30-day validation windows and 90-day steps for the large river, and 3-day validation windows and 5-day steps for the mountainous stream. Receiver distance and our utilization of receiver metadata as an indication of environmental noise consistently emerged as the most influential predictors, while environmental variables contributed relatively evenly to model performance. The small mountainous river model explained 30.7–89.5% of the variability in detection efficiency while the large regulated river model explained 43.8–90.6% of the variability explained. The model’s accuracy varied across resamples based on short rapid environmental changes during rolling cross-validation temporal binning. Our autocorrelation adjusted machine learning model demonstrated adequate estimates of detection efficiency, explaining an average of 68% of the variability across two distinct rivers. Restricted data availability in the mountainous stream and short rapid environmental changes in both systems presented challenges for model accuracy. Accounting for detection efficiency is an important component of describe animal movement using acoustic telemetry and our findings demonstrate machine learning models as an approach to predicting detection efficiency in acoustic receiver arrays across riverine environments with diverse hydrological and geomorphological characteristics.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal BiotelemetrySame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207