A spatial capture–recapture model to estimate fish survival and location from linear continuous monitoring arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a spatial capture–recapture model to evaluate survival and activity centres (i.e., mean locations) of tagged individuals detected along a linear array. Our spatially explicit version of the Cormack–Jolly–Seber model, analyzed using a Bayesian framework, correlates movement between periods and can incorporate environmental or other covariates. We demonstrate the model using 2010 data for anadromous American shad (Alosa sapidissima) tagged with passive integrated transponders (PIT) at a weir near the mouth of a North Carolina river and passively monitored with an upstream array of PIT antennas. The river channel constrained migrations, resulting in linear, one-dimensional encounter histories that included both weir captures and antenna detections. Individual activity centres in a given time period were a function of the individual’s previous estimated location and the river conditions (i.e., gage height). Model results indicate high within-river spawning mortality (mean weekly survival = 0.80) and more extensive movements during elevated river conditions. This model is applicable for any linear array (e.g., rivers, shorelines, and corridors), opening new opportunities to study demographic parameters, movement or migration, and habitat use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".