Population models for Greater Snow Geese: a comparison of different approaches to assess potential impacts of harvest
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demographic models, which are a natural extension of capture-recapture (CR) methodology, are a powerful tool to guide decisions when managing wildlife populations. We compare three different modelling approaches to evaluate the effect of increased harvest on the population growth of Greater Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens atlantica). Our first approach is a traditional matrix model where survival was reduced to simulate increased harvest. We included environmental stochasticity in the matrix projection model by simulating good, average, and bad years to account for the large inter-annual variation in fecundity and first-year survival, a common feature of birds nesting in the Arctic. Our second approach is based on the elasticity (or relative sensitivity) of population growth rate (lambda) to changes in survival as simple functions of generation time. Generation time was obtained from the mean transition matrix based on the observed proportion of good, average and bad years between 1985 and 1998. If we assume that hunting mortality is additive to natural mortality, then a simple formula predicts changes in lambda as a function of changes in harvest rate. This second approach can be viewed as a simplification of the matrix model because it uses formal sensitivity results derived from population projection. Our third, and potentially more powerful approach, uses the Kalman Filter to combine information on demographic parameters, i.e. the population mechanisms summarized in a transition matrix model, and the census information (i.e. annual survey) within an overall Gaussian likelihood. The advantage of this approach is that it minimizes process and measured uncertainties associated with both the census and demographic parameters based on the variance of each estimate. This third approach, in contrast to the second, can be viewed as an extension of the matrix model, by combining its results with the independent census information.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it