An empirical probability model of detecting species at low densities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
False negatives, not detecting things that are actually present, are an important but understudied problem. False negatives are the result of our inability to perfectly detect species, especially those at low density such as endangered species or newly arriving introduced species. They reduce our ability to interpret presence-absence survey data and make sound management decisions (e.g., rapid response). To reduce the probability of false negatives, we need to compare the efficacy and sensitivity of different sampling approaches and quantify an unbiased estimate of the probability of detection. We conducted field experiments in the intertidal zone of New England and New York to test the sensitivity of two sampling approaches (quadrat vs. total area search, TAS), given different target characteristics (mobile vs. sessile). Using logistic regression we built detection curves for each sampling approach that related the sampling intensity and the density of targets to the probability of detection. The TAS approach reduced the probability of false negatives and detected targets faster than the quadrat approach. Mobility of targets increased the time to detection but did not affect detection success. Finally, we interpreted two years of presence-absence data on the distribution of the Asian shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus) in New England and New York, using our probability model for false negatives. The type of experimental approach in this paper can help to reduce false negatives and increase our ability to detect species at low densities by refining sampling approaches, which can guide conservation strategies and management decisions in various areas of ecology such as conservation biology and invasion ecology.
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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".