MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986536089 · doi:10.1139/z00-177

Estimating snowshoe hare population density from pellet plots: a further evaluation

2001· article· en· W1986536089 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Charles J. Krebs, Rudy Boonstra, Vilis O. Nams, Mark O’Donoghue, Karen E. Hodges, Stan Boutin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArctic Institute of North America
KeywordsSnowshoe hareQuadratBiologyPopulation densityTransectRange (aeronautics)Sampling (signal processing)PopulationPelletEcologyRegressionClearanceStatisticsHabitatMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We counted fecal pellets of snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) once a year in 10 areas in the southwestern Yukon from 1987 to 1996. Pellets in eighty 0.155-m 2 quadrats were counted and cleared each June on all areas, and we correlated these counts with estimates of absolute hare density obtained by intensive mark–recapture methods in the same areas. There is a strong relationship between pellet counts and population density (r = 0.76), and we present a predictive log–log regression to quantify this relationship, which improves on our previously published 1987 regression, particularly at low hare densities. The precision of density estimates can be improved most easily by increasing the number of sets of quadrats in an area (one set = 80 plots), rather than increasing the number of plots counted within one set. The most important question remaining concerns the generality of this relationship for snowshoe hares living in other habitats in the eastern and southern portions of their geographic range.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations122
Published2001
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207