Method- and species-specific detection probabilities of fish occupancy in Arctic lakes: implications for design and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies examining species occurrence often fail to account for false absences in field sampling. We investigate detection probabilities of five gear types for six fish species in a sample of lakes on the North Slope, Alaska. We used an occupancy modeling approach to provide estimates of detection probabilities for each method. Variation in gear- and species-specific detection probability was considerable. For example, detection probabilities for the fyke net ranged from 0.82 (SE = 0.05) for least cisco (Coregonus sardinella) to 0.04 (SE = 0.01) for slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). Detection probabilities were also affected by site-specific variables such as depth of the lake, year, day of sampling, and lake connection to a stream. With the exception of the dip net and shore minnow traps, each gear type provided the highest detection probability of at least one species. Results suggest that a multimethod approach may be most effective when attempting to sample the entire fish community of Arctic lakes. Detection probability estimates will be useful for designing optimal fish sampling and monitoring protocols in Arctic lakes.
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 | 0.045 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".