MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944090133 · doi:10.17882/101374

Identification and Abundance of Barkley Canyon Megafauna: Daily Observations from 2012 to 2015 Using Ocean Network Canada Videos (BC, Canada)

2024· dataset· en· W6944090133 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueSEANOE · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanyonAbundance (ecology)ZoomTripod (photography)Sampling (signal processing)Identification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset provides comprehensive records of species identified and their daily abundance in three deep-sites (Upper Slope -400m, Wall -900m, and Axis -1000m) of the Barkley Canyon (British Columbia, Canada) from 2012 to 2015. The data was collected through video recordings from the Ocean Network Canada observatory, which are publicly accessible using their SeaTube website. The dataset includes: - a detailed list of species = "species_list_match.csv" - a corresponding table of species names = "Species_details.csv" - daily abundance counts for each sites = "Abundance_SiteName.csv" - a file that outlines the methodology used for identification and counting = "ReadMe.txt" ---------- Method: - During each daily sampling, all 5-minute recordings made between 08:00 and 08:05 were viewed using VLC 2.0.1 © software to count and identify individuals at the lowest possible taxonomic level. All videos (2 minutes fixed + 3 minutes of scanning) were utilized. Videos were deemed unusable if viewing conditions were poor or particle counts were too high. When identification was not feasible, OTUs were defined. On the three sites mentioned, a camera mounted on a tripod recorded continuously at 5-minute intervals each day of the year. During these recordings, the background was illuminated using two spotlights. The camera recorded fixedly for the initial two minutes and could rotate from 0° (stationary, upper slope, pod2) to 360° (full rotation, canyon axis pod1, except between August 2014 and January 2015) and 180° (canyon wall, pod4). The illumination and zoom parameters, adjustable via the ONC site, were not consistent across all sites and sampling periods, affecting the observed surface area, ranging from 0.5 m² (upper slope, pod2 between May 2013 and May 2014) to a maximum of 9 m² (canyon axis, pod1 between mid-2013 and February 2014). The surface area was calculated each time the camera settings were changed (usually during annual maintenance missions) using a scaling grid developed from the camera’s two lasers, fixing a width of 10 cm on the ground as measured in the camera's field of view. Image captures were taken at intervals to cover the entire surface swept by the camera during rotation, estimating the sampled surface by overlaying the scaling grid on each image. - For more details on the methodology and to understand the context in which the data were collected (scientific questions, hypotheses, and studies conducted), you can refer to Pauline Chauvet's thesis (available in open access).

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSEANOEFrench-language works237,207