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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.039
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