MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073550214 · doi:10.7557/2.23.5.1713

Evaluation of satellite collar sample size requirements for mitigation of low-level military jet disturbance of the George River caribou herd

2003· article· en· W2073550214 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Robert D. Otto, Neal P. P. Simon, Serge Couturier, Isabelle Schmelzer

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsSample size determinationEnvironmental scienceWildlifeCollarSample (material)HerdStatistical powerSatelliteStatisticsEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEngineeringMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildlife radio-telemetry and tracking projects often determine a priori required sample sizes by statistical means or default to the maximum number that can be maintained within a limited budget. After initiation of such projects, little attention is focussed on effective sample size requirements, resulting in lack of statistical power. The Department of National Defence operates a base in Labrador, Canada for low level jet fighter training activities, and maintain a sample of satellite collars on the George River caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) herd of the region for spatial avoidance mitiga¬tion purposes. We analysed existing location data, in conjunction with knowledge of life history, to develop estimates of satellite collar sample sizes required to ensure adequate mitigation of GRCH. We chose three levels of probability in each of six annual caribou seasons. Estimated number of collars required ranged from 15 to 52, 23 to 68, and 36 to 184 for 50%, 75%, and 90% probability levels, respectively, depending on season. Estimates can be used to make more informed decisions about mitigation of GRCH, and, generally, our approach provides a means to adaptively assess radio collar sam¬ple sizes for ongoing studies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207