MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020152398 · doi:10.2981/10-096

The Animal Locator: a new method for accurate and fast collection of animal locations for visible species

2012· article· en· W2020152398 on OpenAlexaff
Cristian Pasquaretta, Giuseppe Bogliani, Luigi Ranghetti, Caterina Ferrari, Achaz von Hardenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersRegione Autonoma Valle d'AostaEuropean Commission
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)PopulationStatisticsRangingHome rangeUSableComputer scienceGeographyEcologyMathematicsGeodesyHabitatBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ranging behaviour is one of the most important aspects of the life history of many species. Spatial distributions of individuals in the wild is linked to factors such as foraging, mating, population density, availability of resources and competition. Accurate data on the spatial location of individuals over time is often difficult to collect. Here, we propose a new simple, non‐invasive and economic method for collecting accurate spatial data usable for many different species of free‐ranging animals. Our instrument for collecting animal locations consists of three elements: a laser range finder, a laser tilt sensor and a protractor. This instrument can obtain three‐dimensional parameters of the space from a fixed point allowing the user to collect geographical locations of the animals and, in general, of any point of interest. The device we tested showed a very low average error among (1.76 ± 0.643 m) and within (1.79 ± 0.058 m) observers, and the locations we obtained were all within the 95% probability of the tolerance intervals for the 20 positions which we measured repeatedly with a Global Position System for each of 10 different test locations. We tested a range of different distances to the target points (from 20 to 222 m), and we propose formulas to calculate precision of the instrument inside this interval. Precision of estimated locations was between 0.32 to 3.55 m from the real location and it was slightly related to distance of the target point (r = 0.38, P = 0.054). As an example of its practical application, we present data on the use of the instrument within the framework of a study on a population of free‐ranging individually tagged alpine marmots Marmota marmota .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207