An Aerial Survey Technique for the Forest-Dwelling Ecotype of Woodland Caribou, <em>Rangifer tarandus caribou</em>
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
Accurate and precise population estimates for the forest-dwelling ecotype of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) are very difficult to obtain because these Caribou are found at very low densities and in small herds dispersed over large areas. In order to suggest a standardized method, data from aerial surveys conducted in 1991 and 1993 (12 000 km2 blocks) were used to simulate various survey scenarios. Simulations showed that all the major groups of Caribou would have to be found and counted to obtain a confidence interval of ± 20% (α = 0.10). We tested this technique in a survey carried out in winter 1999 in a 42 539 km2 study site, opting for a total coverage carried out in two phases. In phase one, we used an airplane, flying north-south transects spaced 2.1 km apart so as to detect most Caribou track networks. In phase two, a helicopter was used to count and determine the sex and age classes (calves/adults) of Caribou found in phase one. Using 20 radio-collared Caribou, the visibility rate of Caribou groups (phase one) and that of Caribou within the groups (phase two) were estimated at 0.90 and 0.94 respectively for an overall rate of 0.85 (SE = 0.08; α = 0.10). The corrected density was estimated at 1.6 Caribou per 100 km2 with a 15% confidence interval (α = 0.10). The survey cost approximately $4/km2, which is lower than that of two previous surveys ($7/km2). Two main factors contributed to diminish costs: (1) the use of long-range airplanes (5-7 hours flying range) in phase one to minimize travel between the airports and the study site, and (2) the use of helicopters only in phase two for counting and determining the age and sex of the Caribou.Il est très difficile d’obtenir des estimations de population exactes et précises pour l’écotype forestier du Caribou des bois (Rangifer tarandus caribou) parce qu’on le retrouve en très faibles densités et qu’il est distribué en petites hardes réparties sur de vastes superficies. Les résultats de deux inventaires aériens réalisés en 1991 et 1993 (12 000 km2) ont été utilisés pour simuler divers scénarios d’inventaire afin de suggérer une méthode standardisée. Les simulations ont montré qu’il fallait trouver et recenser tous les groupes principaux pour obtenir un intervalle de confiance de ± 20 % (α = 0,10). Nous avons testé cette approche dans un site d’étude de 42 539 km2 où nous avons opté pour un plan en deux phases. En phase un, l’avion a été utilisé pour couvrir totalement le site d’étude selon des virées équidistantes de 2,1 km afin de détecter la plupart des réseaux de pistes. L’hélicoptère fut utilisé en phase deux pour dénombrer et sexer les Caribous dans les réseaux de pistes détectés en phase un. D’après 20 Caribous munis de colliers émetteurs, le taux de visibilité global était de 0,85 (SE = 0,08; α = 0,10), soit 0,90 en phase 1 et 0,94 en phase 2. La densité corrigée était de 1,6 Caribou par 100 km2 avec une erreur relative de 15 % (α = 0,10). L’inventaire a coûté 4 $/km2, ce qui est inférieur aux montants investis lors des inventaires antérieurs (7 $/km2). La diminution des coûts est attribuable à deux facteurs principaux : (1) l’utilisation d’avions à grand rayon d’action (5-7 heures d’autonomie) pour minimiser les déplacements en phase un; (2) l’emploi d’hélicoptères exclusivement pour le dénombrement et le sexage des caribous.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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