Automatic detection of fish sounds: A comparison of traditional machine learning with deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many species of fish produce sounds that can be used to monitor them non-intrusively and could complement traditional monitoring techniques. However, the manual annotation of fish sounds in acoustic recordings remains time-intensive, limiting the use of passive acoustics as a viable monitoring tool. This study compares two automated approaches for detecting fish sounds: Random Forest (RF) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). Both algorithms were trained on 21,950 manually labeled fish and non-fish sounds recorded between 2014 and 2019 in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada. Performance calculated on data from the Strait of Georgia, Barkley Sound, and the Port of Miami showed that the CNN performed up to 1.9 times better than the RF (F-score: 0.82 versus 0.43) and was in some cases able to find more faint fish sounds than the analyst. Noise analysis in the 20–1000 Hz frequency band shows that the CNN is still reliable in noise levels greater than 130 dB re 1 μPa in the Port of Miami but becomes less reliable in Barkley Sound past 100 dB re 1 μPa due to mooring noise. We show that the proposed approach can make passive acoustics viable for monitoring fish in a variety of environments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".