Accounting for responsive movement in line transect estimates of abundance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method is developed to account for effects of animal movement in response to sighting platforms in line transect density estimates using data on animal orientation. Models of expected distributions of animal orientation show that presence of responsive movement is determined by the ratio of animal sightings with angles of orientation in the third quadrant relative to the first quadrant. The distance at which response began is estimated using logistic generalized additive models of the relationship between radial distance and orientation. Density corrected for responsive movement is estimated by applying the Buckland and Turnock two-team analysis method to data poststratified into regions "close" to and "far" from (beyond the distance that responsive movement began) the observation platform instead of the original stratification by observation team. For data collected in the North Atlantic, white-sided dolphins, harbor porpoises, and minke whales responded by avoiding the survey ship, and white-beaked dolphins were attracted to the ship. For these populations, our method to correct for responsive movement gave significantly higher estimates, from 1.4 to 2.7 times the uncorrected estimates.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".