MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048315949 · doi:10.1890/13-1564.1

Estimating dispersal among numerous sites using capture–recapture data

2014· article· en· W2048315949 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paméla Lagrange, Roger Pradel, Marc Bélisle, Olivier Giménez

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiological dispersalMark and recapturePasserineEcologyOccupancyPopulationHabitatGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dispersal affects processes as diverse as habitat selection, population growth, and gene flow. Inference about dispersal and its variation is thus crucial for assessing population and evolutionary dynamics. Two approaches are generally used to estimate dispersal in free-ranging animals. First, multisite capture-recapture models estimate movement rates among sites while accounting for survival and detection probabilities. This approach, however, is limited in the number of sites that can be considered. Second, diffusion models estimate movements within discrete habitat using a diffusion coefficient, resulting in a continuous processing of space. However, this approach has been rarely used because of its mathematical and implementation complexity. Here, we develop a multi-event capture-recapture approach that circumvents the issue of too many sites while being relatively simple to be implemented in existing software. Moreover, this new approach allows the quantifying of memory effects, whereby the decision of dispersing or not on a given year impacts the survival or dispersal likelihood of the following year. We illustrate our approach using a long-term data set on the breeding ecology of a declining passerine in southern Quebec, Canada, the Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor).

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations52
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207