MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171806884 · doi:10.7557/2.32.2.2271

Using temporary dye marks to estimate ungulate population abundance in southwest Yukon, Canada

2012· article· en· W2171806884 on OpenAlexaffabout
Troy Hegel, Kyle Russell, Thomas S. Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsYukon Department of Environment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUngulateWoodland caribouHerdGeographyWildlifeAerial surveyAbundance (ecology)Bison bisonPopulationWoodlandEcologyWildlife managementForestryFisheryDemographyBiologyPredationHabitatCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the protocols of two mark-resight abundance surveys, using temporary dye-marks, for the Aishihik woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) and wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) populations (herds) in the southwest Yukon Territory, Canada. We also provide recommendations based on experiences from these surveys for biologists and managers considering this approach. The Aishihik woodland caribou herd was the focus of intensive management in the 1990s aimed at recovering the herd. Following recovery activities, a target size of 2000 animals was determined and the Champagne-Aishihik Traditional Territory Community-Based Wildlife Management Plan recommended an estimate of the herd’s size be completed before the year 2013. We used an aerial mark-resight approach to estimate the herd’s size in March 2009. Caribou (n = 59) were marked from a helicopter with temporary dye, delivered via a CO2-powered rifle. Two independent resighting sessions were subsequently carried out via helicopter. The herd was estimated at 2044 animals (90% CI: 1768 – 2420) with an overall resighting rate of 0.47. The mean annual growth rate (λ) of the herd from 1997 – 2009 was 1.05 (SE = 0.01). The Aishihik wood bison herd was estimated at 1151 (90% CI: 998 – 1355). Our study suggests that ungulates temporarily marked with dye can be successfully used to obtain statistically sound population estimates.

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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207