MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113024914 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.208

Spatial and temporal factors influencing sightability of elk

2011· article· en· W2113024914 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eric Vander Wal, Philip D. McLoughlin, Ryan K. Brook

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervus elaphusHabitatWildlifeGeographyEcologyAbundance (ecology)TelemetryHome rangePhysical geographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Few tracking studies consider seasonal changes in ability to re‐sight wildlife, despite potential for biases in sightability to mislead our interpretation of models of movement and abundance. We developed seasonal sightability models based on visual observations of radio‐collared elk ( Cervus elaphus ) in Manitoba, Canada, through 6 seasons. We located 377 elk 8,862 times using aerial telemetry from 2002 to 2009. We tested the hypothesis that sites where we were able to visually observe radio‐collared elk during aerial telemetry differed from sites where collared elk were known to be present but could not be sighted. Relationships varied with season and elk sightability was influenced by forest type, habitat openness, distance to edge, and time of day. Our results confirm that observers have the highest probability of detecting elk in early and late winter. However, factors such as day length, which increases by 64% during this period, suggest that fewer impediments to detection exist in late winter. Our findings reinforce the need to account for seasonal as well as spatial changes in habitat‐specific sightability models. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207