MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061869104 · doi:10.2193/2008-294

Evaluating Global Positioning System Telemetry Techniques for Estimating Cougar Predation Parameters

2009· article· en· W2061869104 on OpenAlex
Kyle H. Knopff, Aliah Adams Knopff, MIKE B. WARREN, Mark S. Boyce

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsBP (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationTelemetryGlobal Positioning SystemMultinomial logistic regressionLogistic regressionCarnivoreGeographyMixed logitStatisticsEcologyComputer scienceBiologyMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Using clusters of locations obtained from Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry collars to identify predation events may allow more efficient estimation of behavioral predation parameters for the study and management of large carnivore predator‐prey systems. Applications of field‐ and model‐based GPS telemetry cluster techniques, however, have met with mixed success. To further evaluate and refine these techniques for cougars ( Puma concolor ), we used data from visits to 1,735 GPS telemetry clusters, 637 of which were locations where cougars killed prey >8 kg in a multi‐prey system in west‐central Alberta. We tested 1) whether clusters were reliably created at kill locations, 2) the ability of logistic regression models to identify kill occurrence (prey >8 kg) and multinomial regression models to identify the prey species at a kill cluster, and 3) the duration of monitoring required to accurately estimate kill rate and prey composition. We found that GPS collars programmed to attempt location fixes every 3 hours consistently identified locations where prey >8 kg were handled, and cluster creation was robust to GPS location acquisition failures (poor collar fix success). The logistic regression model was capable of estimating cougar kill rate with a mean 5‐fold cross validation error of <10%, provided the appropriate probability cutoff distinguishing kill clusters from non‐kill clusters was selected. Logistic models also can be used to direct visits to clusters, reducing field efforts by as much as 25%, while still locating >95% of all kills. The multinomial model overpredicted occurrence of primary prey (deer) in the diet and underpredicted consumption of alternate prey (e.g., elk and moose) by as much as 100%. We conclude that a purely model‐based approach should be used cautiously and that field visitation is required to obtain reliable information on species, sex, age, or condition of prey. Ultimately, we recommend a combined approach that involves using models to direct field visitation when estimating behavioral predation parameters. Regardless of the monitoring approach, long continuous monitoring periods (i.e., >100 days of a 180‐day period) were necessary to reduce bias and imprecision in kill rate and prey composition 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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.283 · 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