Acoustic vs. photographic monitoring of gray wolves (<i>Canis lupus</i>): a methodological comparison of two passive monitoring techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote camera traps are often used in large-mammal research and monitoring programs because they are cost-effective, allow for repeat surveys, and can be deployed for long time periods. Statistical advancements in calculating population densities from camera-trap data have increased the popularity of camera usage in mammal studies. However, drawbacks to camera traps include their limited sampling area and tendency for animals to notice the devices. In contrast, autonomous recording units (ARUs) record the sounds of animals with a much larger sampling area but are dependent on animals producing detectable vocalizations. In this study, we compared estimates of occupancy and detectability between ARUs and remote cameras for gray wolves (Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758) in northern Alberta, Canada. We found ARUs to be comparable with cameras in their detectability and occupancy of wolves, despite only operating for 3% of the time that cameras were active. However, combining cameras and ARUs resulted in the highest detection probabilities for wolves. These advances in survey technology and statistical methods provide innovative avenues for large-mammal monitoring that, when combined, can be applied to a broad spectrum of conservation and management questions, provided assumptions for these methods are rigorously tested and met.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".