Comparative Performance of Three Brands of Lightweight Global Positioning System Collars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Recent miniaturization and weight reductions of Global Positioning System (GPS) collars have opened up deployment opportunities on a new array of terrestrial animal species, but the performance of lightweight (<90 g) GPS collars has not been evaluated. I examined the success of 42 GPS collars from 3 manufacturers (Televilt/TVP Positioning, AB, Lindesburg, Sweden; Sirtrack Ltd., Havelock North, New Zealand; H.A.B.I.T [HABIT] Research Ltd., Victoria, BC, Canada) in stationary, open‐sky conditions and during deployments on brushtail possums ( Trichosurus vulpecula ), a nocturnal arboreal marsupial. I assessed performance of these collars in terms of technical malfunctions, fix‐success rates, battery longevity, and aspects of location quality. Technical malfunctions occurred in >50% of HABIT and Televilt collars, whereas all Sirtrack collars operated normally. Fix‐success rates for all brands were significantly higher during stationary tests than when deployed on brushtail possums. HABIT and Televilt brands functioned poorly in field conditions, with success rates of 16.2% and 2.1%, respectively. Sirtrack collars had the highest fix rate when deployed (64.8%). I modified several HABIT collars by changing the GPS antenna location, with a resultant substantial increase in field fix success (92.6%). Most collars ceased working before they reached 50% of their manufacturer‐estimated life expectancy. Suboptimal placement of GPS antenna, combined with short satellite acquisition times and long fix intervals, were a likely cause of low fix‐success rates and premature battery failures. Researchers wanting to employ lightweight GPS collars must be aware of current limitations and should carefully consider prospects of low fix rates and limited battery lives before deciding whether these units are capable of meeting study objectives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".