Novel, continuous monitoring of fine‐scale movement using fixed‐position radiotelemetry arrays and random forest location fingerprinting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Radio‐tag signals from fixed‐position antennas are most often used to indicate presence or absence of individuals, or to estimate individual activity levels from signal strength variation within an antenna's detection zone. The potential of such systems to provide more precise information on tag location and movement has not been explored in great detail in an ecological setting. By reversing the roles that transmitters and receivers play in localization methods common to the telecommunications industry, we present a new telemetric tool for accurately estimating the location of tagged individuals from received signal strength values. The methods used to characterize the study area in terms of received signal strength are described, as is the random forest model used for localization. The resulting method is then validated using test data before being applied to true data collected from tagged individuals in the study site. Application of the localization method to test data withheld from the learning dataset indicated a low average error over the entire study area (<1 m), whereas application of the localization method to real data produced highly probable results consistent with field observations. This telemetric approach provided detailed movement data for tagged fish along a single axis (a migratory path) and is particularly useful for monitoring passage along migratory routes. The new methods applied in this study can also be expanded to include multiple axes ( x , y , z ) and multiple environments (aquatic and terrestrial) for remotely monitoring wildlife movement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".