Additional file 1 of Lab and field evaluation of tagging methods for the use of acoustic telemetry to observe sea urchin movement behaviour at ecologically relevant spatio-temporal scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Details of tagging methods. Figure S1. Number of nylon screw tagged urchins (green dashed line) and number of hole urchins (orange solid line) through time (days post-tagging), showing that hole urchins are almost entirely composed of nylon screw tagged urchins that have lost their tags (sum of the two groups is always equal or close to the 80 individuals initially tagged with nylon screws). Figure S2. The effect of including more points (increasing the percentage included) on minimum convex polygon area. Estimated areas for 10% to 90% of points are shown, coloured by month of observation. Vertical dashed line indicates the chosen cut-off point (75%) where the small percentage of points very far from the majority cause a steep increase in estimated area. This should ensure that large-error points are excluded from these estimates, while retaining points which represent actual movement and space use by individual urchins. Figure S3. Larger urchins take more time to right themselves than smaller urchins (significant effect of diameter), although there is significant variability between individuals and measures; points and predictions are from Control urchins only. Table S1. Parameter estimates (beta coefficients) from models, with 95% confidence intervals. Figure S4. Test diameter (mm) of urchins before tagging and at the end of the experiment after 3.5 months. Because of mortality and tag loss, the number of individuals in each group after 3.5 months is less than at the beginning, except for the Hole treatment. Significant differences between tagging treatments from post-hoc comparisons are shown with different letters. Figure S5. Gonad weight as a function of tagging treatment. There were no significant differences between tagging treatments. Figure S6. Relationship between gonad wet weight and test diameter for all tagging treatments. Model results (predicted values and 95% Confidence Intervals) are shown. Figure S7. Injuries observed through time as a function of tagging method. No mortality and only two injuries were observed in control urchins. Because injuries could only be followed and definitively assigned to a tagging method as long as the tag was attached, the number of urchins removed from these observations at each time period is shown as the category “Tag lost or urchin dead”. For example, the small number of injuries assigned to the Nylon screw tagging method is a function of the high mortality and high tag loss seen in this treatment; these urchins are also shown in the Hole tag treatment here, as urchins with Very apparent injuries. Figure S8. Net displacement of tagged individuals after 2 days in the field calculated from diver observations. Figure S9. Number of observations per tagged individual. The two tagging methods are shown as different shapes and colours, while release point ‘a’ and ‘b’ are the top and bottom panels, respectively. Points are shown for the total number of observations filtered by the positioning error (HPE). All urchins have at least one point (not filtered: largest and palest point) although for certain individuals that were never detected by the array (ID 10 and 11) this is zero. Successively darker and smaller points are filtered by lower HPE values. Size of the points is scaled by the HPE filter (points filtered by larger values, are larger). Note the different y-axis scales for the two panels. Figure S10. Minimum convex polygons (MCPs) per month for each individual. Points are all detections (HPE < 200), polygons are monthly 75% MCPs and numbers in the upper right of each panel are the MCP area per month in m2. a) Fishing line tagged urchins and b) T-bar-tagged urchins. The detached reference tag is shown in both a and b (id #31) for comparison.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.798 | 0.174 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".