MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119416794 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.184

Estimating mountain goat abundance using DNA from fecal pellets

2011· article· en· W2119416794 on OpenAlexaff
Kim G. Poole, Darryl M. Reynolds, Garth Mowat, David Paetkau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Forests
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUngulateWildlifePopulationBiologyAbundance (ecology)GenotypingFecesMicrosatellitePopulation sizeEcologyZoologyHabitatDemographyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Non‐invasive collection of tissue samples to obtain DNA for microsatellite genotyping required to estimate population size has been used for many wildlife species but rarely for ungulates. We estimated mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) population size on a mountain complex in southwestern British Columbia by identification of individuals using DNA obtained from fecal pellet and hair samples collected during 3 sampling sessions. We identified 55 individuals from 170 samples that were successfully genotyped, and estimated a population of 77 mountain goats (SE = 7.4). Mean capture probability was 0.38 (SE = 0.037) per session. Our technique provides one of the first statistically rigorous estimates of abundance of an ungulate species using DNA derived primarily from fecal pellets. Our technique enables managers to obtain minimum counts or population estimates of ungulates in areas of low sightability that can be used for conservation and management. © 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207