Use of Occupancy Models to Estimate the Influence of Previous Live Captures on DNA‐Based Detection Probabilities of Grizzly Bears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Large carnivores potentially change their behavior following physical capture, becoming less responsive to the attractants that resulted in their capture, which can bias population estimates where the change in behavior is not appropriately modeled. We applied occupancy models to efficiently estimate and compare detection probabilities of previously collared grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) with bears captured at DNA hair‐snag sites that were not previously collared. We found that previously captured bears had lower detection probabilities, although their detection probabilities were still >0, implying that they were still visible to be sampled via the DNA hair‐snag grid, which was able to detect finer differences in capture probabilities of previously collared bears compared with Huggins closed‐captures population models. To obtain relatively unbiased population estimates for DNA surveys, heterogeneity caused by previous live capture should be accounted for in the population estimator. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):589–595; 2008)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".