MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042878624 · doi:10.1139/f09-040

Estimation of seal pup production from aerial surveys using generalized additive models

2009· article· en· W2042878624 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Arnt-Børre Salberg, Tor Arne Øigård, Garry B. Stenson, Tore Haug, Kjell Tormod Nilssen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersUniversity of St AndrewsHavforskningsinstituttet
KeywordsEstimatorStatisticsStandard errorGeneralized additive modelMathematicsStandard deviation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we estimate the pup production of harp seals ( Pagophilus groenlandicus ) using generalized additive models (GAMs) based on thin-plate regression splines. The spatial distribution of seal pups in a patch is modelled using GAMs, and the pup production is estimated by numerically integrating the model over a fine grid area of the patch. Closed form expression for estimation of the the standard error of the pup production estimate is derived. The estimators are applied to simulated seal populations to investigate their properties. The results show that the proposed pup production estimator is comparable with the conventional pup production estimator. However, the bias of the standard error estimator of the proposed method is much lower than the bias of the conventional standard error estimator. The decrease of standard error bias results in a considerable reduction of the coefficient of variation estimate using the proposed GAM-based method. The proposed method is also applied to real survey data of harp seals obtained from aerial surveys in the Greenland Sea pack ice in 2002. We show that the number of pups counted from aerial photographs possess a good fit to the negative binomial distribution when a logarithmic link function is applied. The approach described here is applicable to many situations where georeferenced counts or measurements are available.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207