MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176121052 · doi:10.1002/wsb.601

Large‐scale control site selection for population monitoring: An example assessing sage‐grouse trends

2015· article· en· W2176121052 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley C. Fedy, Michael S. O’Donnell, Zachary H. Bowen

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsWildlifePopulationHabitatPopulation controlGeographyEcologyWildlife managementSite selectionPopulation sizePopulation growthEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Human impacts on wildlife populations are widespread and prolific and understanding wildlife responses to human impacts is a fundamental component of wildlife management. The first step to understanding wildlife responses is the documentation of changes in wildlife population parameters, such as population size. Meaningful assessment of population changes in potentially impacted sites requires the establishment of monitoring at similar, nonimpacted, control sites. However, it is often difficult to identify appropriate control sites in wildlife populations. We demonstrated use of Geographic Information System (GIS) data across large spatial scales to select biologically relevant control sites for population monitoring. Greater sage‐grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hearafter, sage‐grouse) are negatively affected by energy development, and monitoring of sage‐grouse population within energy development areas is necessary to detect population‐level responses. We used population data (1995–2012) from an energy development area in Wyoming, USA, the Atlantic Rim Project Area (ARPA), and GIS data to identify control sites that were not impacted by energy development for population monitoring. Control sites were surrounded by similar habitat and were within similar climate areas to the ARPA. We developed nonlinear trend models for both the ARPA and control sites and compared long‐term trends from the 2 areas. We found little difference between the ARPA and control sites trends over time. This research demonstrated an approach for control site selection across large landscapes and can be used as a template for similar impact‐monitoring studies. It is important to note that identification of changes in population parameters between control and treatment sites is only the first step in understanding the mechanisms that underlie those changes. Published 2015. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.266
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207