MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heterogeneous patterns of availability for detection during visual surveys: spatiotemporal variation in sea turtle dive–surfacing behaviour on a feeding ground

2011· article· en· W1576124272 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan A. Thomson, Andrew B. Cooper, Derek A. Burkholder, Michael R. Heithaus, Lawrence M. Dill

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFlorida International UniversityUniversity of Arizona Cancer CenterSimon Fraser UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsForagingHabitatTurtle (robot)BayFisheryEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 1. During aerial or boat‐based surveys for large‐bodied diving taxa (e.g. marine mammals and marine turtles), a proportion of animals present will be missed because they are submerged and out of view, leading to ‘availability bias’ in abundance indices. Information on dive–surfacing patterns can improve corrections for availability bias. However, as dive data are typically limited, availability correction factors are often based on poorly resolved dive and surface times, and diving heterogeneity is not considered. 2. We collected dive records for green turtlesChelonia mydas,Linnaeus 1758, and loggerhead turtlesCaretta caretta, Linnaeus 1758, on a foraging ground in Shark Bay, Western Australia to quantify dive–surfacing patterns and assess potential correlations with easily measured environmental features: habitat depth and water temperature. Bayesian regression models were used to predict dive and surface interval durations across temperature–depth gradients and assess their uncertainty. We used these predictions to quantify variation in availability correction factors, which were multipliers designed, in this case, to adjust surface sightings data to incorporate diving animals. 3. Dive and surface interval durations for both species varied positively with depth and negatively with temperature, consistent witha prioriexpectations, although temperature effects were not always significant. Dive metrics were predictable, although uncertainty increased in deeper habitat with few observed dives. 4. Availability correction factors were highly heterogeneous, with larger corrections necessary in colder, deeper conditions (long‐diving, infrequent surfacing behaviour) and smaller corrections required in warmer, shallower conditions (short‐diving, frequent‐surfacing behaviour). 5. Predictable variation in the diving behaviour of chelonid sea turtles across environmental gradients on a foraging ground reveals that site‐specific knowledge of dive–surfacing patterns can be important to mitigate the effects of availability bias during population surveys. Accounting for such trends may improve the reliability of ecological inferences (e.g. spatiotemporal distribution trends) and the efficacy of applications (e.g. conservation planning) based on survey data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations45
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207