| 000 | 00000nam 2200000zi 4500 |
| 001 | 9.947230 |
|---|
| 003 | CaOODSP |
|---|
| 005 | 20250206151248 |
|---|
| 006 | m o d f |
|---|
| 007 | cr mn||||||||| |
|---|
| 008 | 250121t20252025nsca ob f000 0 eng d |
|---|
| 020 | |a9780660753607 |
|---|
| 040 | |aCaOODSP|beng|erda|cCaOODSP |
|---|
| 041 | 0 |aeng|beng|bfre |
|---|
| 043 | |an-cn-ns|aln----- |
|---|
| 086 | 1 |aFs97-4/3300E-PDF |
|---|
| 100 | 1 |aNozeĢres, Claude, |eauthor. |
|---|
| 245 | 10|aComparison of Pennatula aculeata sea pen abundance at a fixed site over an extended period using machine learning, image annotation, and image cataloguing / |cClaude Nozères, Laurence H. De Clippele, Jinshan Xu, and Ellen Kenchington. |
|---|
| 264 | 1|aDartmouth, Nova Scotia : |bOcean and Ecosystem Sciences Division, Maritimes Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, |c2025. |
|---|
| 264 | 4|c©2025 |
|---|
| 300 | |a1 online resource (iv, 34 pages) : |billustrations (chiefly colour). |
|---|
| 336 | |atext|btxt|2rdacontent |
|---|
| 337 | |acomputer|bc|2rdamedia |
|---|
| 338 | |aonline resource|bcr|2rdacarrier |
|---|
| 490 | 1 |aCanadian manuscript report of fisheries and aquatic sciences, |x1488-5387 ; |v3300 |
|---|
| 504 | |aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 33-34). |
|---|
| 520 | 3 |a"A benthic platform documented retraction behavior of Pennatula aculeata colonies in The Gully, Nova Scotia, Canada. The fixed site had 12,054 images taken every 30 min between October 2022 and July 2023. Three methods were used to quantify visible sea pens. A machine learning model using RootPainter was trained on cropped images of several colonies, with the areas classified as sea pens serving as a proxy for presences. The BIIGLE online platform was used to annotate one image per week, with colonies ranging from 10 to 52 per image. Finally, a catalogue with Adobe Lightroom was used to label 22 P. aculeata colonies individually, with 2 to 21 visible per cropped image. Similar values indicating presences over the months were produced across the three methods. Cataloguing required the most effort, though it was estimated to be faster than BIIGLE annotation and easier to produce counts than with RootPainter. Overall, RootPainter was preferred for its efficiency and Lightroom for its utility, while BIIGLE was not recommended because of the higher manual workload"--Abstract, page iv. |
|---|
| 546 | |aIncludes abstracts in English and French. |
|---|
| 650 | 0|aSea pens|xCounting|zGully Marine Protected Area. |
|---|
| 650 | 0|aImage analysis|xData processing. |
|---|
| 650 | 0|aImage processing|xDigital techniques. |
|---|
| 650 | 6|aPennatulides|xComptage|zNouvelle-Écosse|zZone de protection marine du Gully. |
|---|
| 650 | 6|aAnalyse d'images|xInformatique. |
|---|
| 650 | 6|aTraitement d'images|xTechniques numériques. |
|---|
| 710 | 1 |aCanada. |bDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans, |eissuing body. |
|---|
| 710 | 2 |aBedford Institute of Oceanography, |eissuing body. |
|---|
| 830 | #0|aCanadian manuscript report of fisheries and aquatic sciences ;|v3300.|w(CaOODSP)9.505211 |
|---|
| 856 | 40|qPDF|s5.28 MB|uhttps://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2025/mpo-dfo/Fs97-4-3300-eng.pdf |
|---|